Parliament Square

Baroness Hamwee: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether the House authorities were consulted before the Mayor of London's announcement that he would not proceed with the planned part-pedestrianisation of Parliament Square.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Parliament has been closely involved in this project. The Parliamentary Estates Directorate was represented on the world squares steering group, the GLA wrote to Members of both Houses to seek their views and a number of submissions were made to the mayor. On 6 August 2008, the mayor announced that he had decided not to proceed with the project on the grounds of traffic impacts, cost and potential loss of green space. That was his decision to make. Parliament was neither the originator nor the owner of the scheme.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Parliament was not the originator or the owner, but no one who works in this building can be unaware of how unwelcoming it is for visitors to be faced with so much traffic and no obvious area where they can look at the whole of a world heritage site, compromising the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey but bisected by a road. The mayor said that his decision was not a matter of cash but of design. May I urge the noble Lord and the House authorities to be proactive and energetic in working with the mayor to find a design that is acceptable to all so that we can be more welcoming to visitors?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the mayor comes up with new proposals, the House is still represented on the World Squares for All steering group and will actively take part in any proposals put forward.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that was nearly a very bad birthday present from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I thank the Chairman of Committees for his reply, which was extremely helpful to those of us who find it impossible to get home without a taxi. There are many disabled people here, quite apart from visitors. This House exists for its occupants, not for visitors. If any change is going to be made to Parliament Square, could those little tent people be moved to Marble Arch?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I wish the noble Baroness a very happy birthday.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a number of points. Under yesterday's instruction, I shall keep my reply as short as possible. The noble Baroness's main point was that by no means everyone agrees on what the mayor's proposal did not propose. It is not as simple as all that.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that Questions were raised on this subject in the House repeatedly, and that many of us found great dissatisfaction with the proposals, not only in what they would do to traffic but in how difficult access to the abbey would have been? Most of us are satisfied that those visitors who come to see us—I have plenty, many of whom come from a long way away—have no trouble at all in getting into this building.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is not for me to get into the merits or otherwise of the proposal, which has now been dropped. Part of the proposal that never got very far was the possible closure of Abingdon Street, which we debated back in July, but that proposal was never considered in detail.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees accept that access to the Palace of Westminster for as many people as possible is a basic democratic principle which we should all support? The possibility of opening up what would in effect be a great democratic space, as well as linking together the historic abbey and the Palace of Westminster for pedestrians, would hugely benefit everyone.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord made exactly those points in his Question for Short Debate in July and I have nothing further to add to my reply then.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as we are on anniversaries, I remind the House that it is also the anniversary of the Battle of Alamein, in which I declare an interest. Will the Chairman of Committees tell us how many people would wish to congratulate the mayor on what he has done?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on that. I am answering for the administration of the House; I cannot answer for the mayor or for those who agree or disagree with his proposals. I remind noble Lords that it was this House that passed the law that set the mayor up some years ago. If people now do not like some of the decisions that he makes, that is just too bad.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, although the Chairman of Committees does not want to be drawn into the issues, does he agree that a scheme that would include traffic going along the north side would meet some of the objections enunciated in previous questions? The scheme would be marvellous for tourists, both British and foreign, if that space were created as a piazza for Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is the scheme that has just been cancelled.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does this decision by the mayor mean that the unsightly barriers around the entrance to Parliament, which cause anyone approaching it from the west to drive all the way round Parliament Square, will remain for eternity?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the removal of the Corus security barriers in front of the Palace of Westminster—in front of our part in particular—was not affected by the scheme that has just been scrapped. They would have been affected only if the scheme had extended to the closure of Abingdon Street, which in many ways would have been a good result for this House.

Human Rights: Same-sex Relationships

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 10 July (Official Report, 10/7/08; cols 843-4), whether they have amended or withdrawn their intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Horst Schalk and Johann Kopf v Austria (Application No 30141/04) to contend that same-sex relationships fall outside the ambit of family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government have not amended or withdrawn the intervention. During the debate on 10 July the noble Lord raised an important technical issue in relation to the approach taken to Article 8. The Government undertook to reflect on that aspect. In accordance with that undertaking, my officials have sought views from other departments and expect to be able to provide the noble Lord with more information by the end of November.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is bizarre for the Government, who turned my Civil Partnership Bill into legislation of which they can be justly proud, to intervene in a case against Austria apparently to persuade the Strasbourg court to adopt a narrow interpretation of the Article 8 right to respect for family life for same-sex couples in other European countries. Will the Government urgently reconsider their intervention and note the significance of the leading judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, given yesterday in the case of EM (Lebanon) against the Home Secretary, where he interpreted the fundamental rights in the following terms—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to put the question without barracking.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said:
	"Families differ widely, in their composition and in the mutual relations which exist between the members ... Thus there is no predetermined model of family or family life to which article 8 must be applied".
	Surely—

Noble Lords: Order!

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Forgive me, my Lords. I was not in the House yesterday when my noble friend Lord Bassam spoke to the House about the need for us to have short questions, but I heard him on "Today in Parliament". He was absolutely right, and I know that the House is very much behind him. I therefore remind all noble Lords to keep their answers and their questions brief.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I stand rebuked. Does the Minister accept that it is very important to protect the rights of British civil partners in same-sex relationships in other parts of Europe, for example in France, so that they enjoy protection?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the main purpose of our intervention is to address the argument made by the applicants that the right to marry, which is protected under Article 12, extends to same-sex couples, and I repeat that we are looking with some speed now at the point that the noble Lord made in his Question in July. As far as France is concerned, we have raised our concerns about non-recognition with the French Ministry of Justice. Both that Ministry and the French Finance Ministry have expressed their willingness to work with us to resolve the issue. There are a number of legal obstacles to recognition, but I can tell the House that this subject is on the agenda of meetings to be held between the Justice Secretary and the Europe Minister and their French counterparts in the next few days.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while Article 8 of the European convention provides mainly for privacy in the home and Article 14 provides for non-discrimination, Article 12 provides for a view of marriage between a man and woman and of family life that is basic to the existence and continuation of any society?

Lord Bach: My Lords, Article 12 speaks for itself. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of that right. When we passed the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, we made a distinction in it and did not call single-sex partnerships marriage. In many important ways, it was very similar, particularly in the many legal rights that it quite rightly gave to single-sex partnerships, but it did not call those partnerships marriage, and that remains the Government's policy.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in the light of the Government's excellent recent legislation on this matter, which we all support, why do the Government apparently object to the Strasbourg court developing any case law on this matter, which is the normal way in which law can be developed?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we do not object to the advancement of case law from the European court. Our main objection—I am sorry if I am repeating myself—is to address the argument, made by the applicants in the case referred to in the Question, that the right to marry, which is protected under Article 12, extends to same-sex couples.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Minister's answer is most welcome, and I am grateful for it.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would it not be a rather good idea if, regardless of the merits of the legislation enacted in this Parliament, we got back to the idea that it is this Parliament that governs this country and makes the laws that govern the people of this country? It would simplify matters an awful lot, and would save us from a great deal of the verbosity of those who cannot read a brief without actually having it in their hot little hands.

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is this country that passes the laws for this country.

Small Businesses

Lord Cotter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to assist small businesses in the current financial situation.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, banks have committed to the recent recapitalisation scheme to maintain over the next three years the availability and active marketing of competitively priced lending to small businesses at 2007 levels. Central government departments aim to pay 100 per cent of invoices within 10 days, and we are providing advice and support services, including health checks for small businesses through Business Link and the "solutions for business" package announced earlier today.

Lord Cotter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that Ministers are meeting the banks today. Will they agree with the banks a memorandum of understanding to ensure availability of finance, competitive interest rates and no increases in fees for small businesses? May I also point out that the issue of small shops has not been addressed? I presented to this House the Retail Development Bill, which the House has passed, and which calls for an assessment of business rates for small shops. Perhaps the Minister will also respond to that point.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, on the memorandum of understanding, an agreement has already been reached with the banks to maintain the availability and active marketing of lending at competitive prices. I do not think that we have got to the sort of economy in which we can set the fees and interest rates for each loan. We also agreed with the banks this morning that they and the Small Business Forum would meet to iron out problems that come through in the next few months.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, given the importance of the single European market, will my noble friend re-examine the directive that governs that market on late payment and indeed the 1998 UK legislation which governs the same, especially with respect to the failure of big businesses to pay small businesses on time?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, we have had a long discussion with small businesses about the Act and the need for legislation. The view which has been reached is that this area would not easily lend itself to legislation and that the 1998 legislation is perfectly adequate in allowing interest to be charged in particular for late payments. We will be encouraging all businesses as well as government and the wider public sector to pay as soon as possible. That is why the Government have set the example by saying that we will pay within 10 days.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in the Secretary of State's Statement to your Lordships' House yesterday on the subject of this Question, he said that more than a million new businesses have been created since 1997. Was that a gross or a net figure?

Baroness Vadera: It was a gross figure, my Lords.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses is today calling for the replacement of the small firms loan guarantee scheme by a £1 billion survival fund to be funded by the Government and the European Investment Bank. Is she yet in a position to give the Government's response to that proposal?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, we have studied the proposal and have been discussing it with the Federation of Small Businesses for some time. We are currently in discussions with the EIB. Next week there will be a meeting between the Chancellor, my Secretary of State and the president of the EIB to discuss our application to the EIB for funding specifically for small businesses.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, in respect of the soon-to-be nationalised banks, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that the Government do not interfere for political reasons in the day-to-day running of those banks?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, we are required by law to protect the remaining shareholders. We will put our shareholding into an arm's-length entity and have given our assurance that it will be run entirely commercially.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to encourage an extension of flexible working with the cost saving that that brings to families and, indeed, to small businesses? Will she also do her best to see that flexible working requests from men with family responsibilities are treated as seriously as those from women?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, our views and our policies on flexible working are very clear on this subject. I understand that they were also clarified by the Secretary of State yesterday.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, in response to repeated questioning yesterday on whether the £350 million allocated to training is new money, the Secretary of State said that it,
	"is additional training money for small businesses. It is existing money, but it was not previously available to small companies".—[Official Report, 22/10/08; col. 1155.]
	To which projects had that money previously been allocated, which will now, therefore, not receive it?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, that funding was allocated by DIUS for Train to Gain, but not specially allocated for small businesses. John Denham's announcement stated that we would create some flexibility in the way that small businesses can access Train to Gain as well as allocate this funding especially for them.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that government departments will now be instructed to pay within 10 days. What was the average time before?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, 85 per cent of government procurement contracts were paid within 10 days while the remaining 15 per cent were paid on time but not within 10 days. We are attempting to move that 15 per cent into the 10-day timeframe.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, yesterday I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, whether the Government intend to support the European Commission proposal to allow VAT to be reduced on repairs to houses, listed buildings and so on, which comes up at ECOFIN in a few days' time. Presumably the Government know how they intend to act on this proposal, but the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, did not seem to know when he responded yesterday. Can the noble Baroness help?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, VAT is a matter for the Treasury and it would be inappropriate for us to comment before its position is made public.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister answer the question asked previously about which department or where this money is coming from? She did not answer it.

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I said that the money is coming from DIUS, the department responsible for Train to Gain. That is the answer that I gave previously and the one that I am giving now.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in her answer to my noble friend Lord Cope the noble Baroness said that she could not respond because it was a matter for the Treasury. Is she aware that she answers for the whole Government?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I am perfectly aware that I answer for the whole Government. Nevertheless, matters on tax are for the Treasury. It makes these issues public in a certain process and procedure that we must all respect.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, while many small businesses would welcome a reduction in interest rates, I am sure that the noble Baroness is well aware that the pound is falling in value against the dollar and other currencies, and that there is a relationship between interest rates and the value of the pound. What protective measures are available to the Government in the event of a run on the pound?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, I do not believe that we are currently anticipating a run on the pound, but I am sure that the tripartite authorities have made provisions for all circumstances, and have done for years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have now had six or seven questions in a row from the Conservative Benches. Will the Minister acknowledge that on this side of the House we believe that she has answered all of them not only effectively but quickly, and we are grateful to her?

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, if the noble Baroness's answer to that question is one of silence, perhaps I may ask her quickly and effectively to answer this question. To what extent have the individual components of the recently announced bank rescue package now been implemented, so that the banks may be expected to respond accordingly?

Baroness Vadera: My Lords, liquidity is already available and is being utilised. The first issuance under the medium-term guarantee scheme, a central part of the package, has already been undertaken by Barclays and had a positive impact on the market. Recapitalisation will obviously be subject to shareholder votes and to the marketing of the shares, which will be taking place over next two or three months for closure towards the end of the year.

Income Inequality

Lord Haskel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What response they have to the OECD report Growing Unequal? and, in particular, the report's findings on changes to the United Kingdom's income inequality.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government welcome the report. Government reforms to promote employment opportunity for all, to make work pay, and to support vulnerable groups have helped all sections of society to share in rising national prosperity in the last 10 years. Since 1997, living standards have risen strongly across the income distribution. The previously sharp rise in income inequality has been arrested, and relative poverty has fallen significantly among children and pensioners.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that what he has described has been achieved not by squeezing the rich, but by helping the less well off, and that this help has been a crusade for the Labour Party for many years? Can he confirm that the Government will continue with it?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government's broad objectives of creating a competitive and successful economy and a fairer society will continue.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the OECD report takes account of the fact that the national minimum wage, tax credits, family benefits and pension credits were all introduced by the Government and opposed by those opposite? If the Opposition had been successful, would we have been able to enjoy the statistics produced by the OECD?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the OECD report identified that income inequality was increasing markedly during the 1980s and early 1990s and that this process has been arrested. This is as a result of government policies—of which the most important is the employment policy—and the increase in the number of jobs available in our society, together with the other points which my noble friend has identified.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister referred to the children and pensioners in poverty numbers decreasing since 1997. However, he will know that since 2005 those numbers have been increasing, and the OECD report only ran to 2005. Do the Government have any policies to turn that negative trend around, especially in the light of the current economic circumstances?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we all recognise that the current economic circumstances are difficult indeed and that there is a difficult year ahead. That is why my noble friend, in response to an earlier Question, indicated that the Treasury and the Chancellor will be making clear their strategy in the Pre-Budget Report, which we expect shortly. The answer to the noble Baroness's question is clear: in these difficult circumstances we will seek to protect those most disadvantaged in our society.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it is bad enough for most of us in this House to pay a marginal rate of tax of 40 per cent, but that what is far worse is that at the bottom of the stack people are paying rates of more than 80 per cent when you take into account both tax and loss of benefits? Is it not a scandal that the effective tax rate for people on very low earnings is so much higher than for those on high earnings?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has highlighted an important point. I am not sure that it was addressed more than a decade ago but he is right to address it to a Government who feel keenly about this issue. I emphasise that through tax credits more families are getting resources greater than the tax they pay, but certainly the Government need to address the issue identified by the noble Lord.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that over the past 10 years the Government have presided over a sharp rise in the price of houses and home ownership, despite the recent fallback? Do the Government regard that as a benefit to the citizens of this country?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the extension of home ownership is certainly a benefit, as is the security that people derive from what has been invested in their homes. However, a significant percentage of the population need homes, are not in a position to purchase and need social housing. That is why the Government have emphasised that we intend to develop social housing as soon as we are able to do so.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the OECD that the single biggest reason that income inequality has fallen is that unemployment has fallen significantly? Does he further agree that if there were a reduction in GDP next year of only half a per cent, unemployment is likely to rise by 1 million? Will he therefore consider ending tax perks for the rich so that taxes can be reduced for those at the bottom end of the scale, to benefit those families and communities that are likely to be most affected by the rapidly rising levels of unemployment that we now expect?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I agree with his first point because I said earlier that employment policies are by far the most effective way of affecting income redistribution. On the more general point, of course we need to address what will be some increases in unemployment. We can see that taking place at present and it is bound to occur over the coming year. As I have indicated, the Government will outline our plans to cope with that issue in the Pre-Budget Report in the near future.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, how can the Government continue to support flexibility in the workplace, which has been particularly important in increasing women's participation, given the current economic circumstances?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we take pride in the increased flexibility in our economy, and that is a reflection of flexibility at the place of work. It is of particular significance to women, who frequently require flexible hours. We all recognise that over the past decade or so that has been one of the more significant developments in the workplace, and we will seek to sustain that development.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the importance to this improvement of the Government's investment in childcare? Will he pay tribute to the work of childminders and early-years workers in achieving this improved employment rate?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, who takes a keen interest in these matters and therefore speaks with authority when he indicates how crucial the issue of childcare is, particularly the role of childminders, relating both to the question I was asked earlier about flexibility with regard to women at work and to the benefit of children.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Government have been keen to improve the status of women in terms of their employment and salaries. In the current circumstances, what is happening to the equality, or lack of it, of wages between men and women?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we all know what a challenge that represents, and of the disparities throughout our economic history between the earning power of women and that of men. We are concerned that there should be fair pay for all according to the work that they do and the noble Baroness will recognise the extent to which we have been able to do that in certain areas, overwhelmingly in the public sector. It is more difficult in the private sector, as she will appreciate.

Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2008

Police (Performance) Regulations 2008

Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2008

International Criminal Court (Remand Time) Order 2008

Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Revocation) Order 2008

Rail Vehicle Accessibility Exemption Orders (Parliamentary Procedures) Regulations 2008

Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London Underground Victoria Line 09TS Vehicles) Exemption Order 2008

Air Navigation (Environmental Standards for Non-EASA Aircraft) Order 2008

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move the nine Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft rules, regulations and orders be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2008

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving the Motion, I should say that the first-stage legislative reform order was debated in Grand Committee on 13 December and that the revised draft order reflects the comments made by your Lordships' Regulatory Reform Committee.

Moved, That the draft legislative reform order laid before the House on 26 June be approved. 1st and 12th Reports from the Regulatory Reform Committee, First-stage draft order considered in Grand Committee on 13 December 2007.—(Baroness Andrews.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning Bill

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]
	Clause 198 [The levy]:

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 435A:
	Clause 198, page 122, line 36, leave out "with the consent of the Treasury"

The Earl of Caithness: In moving Amendment No. 435A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 435C, 435D, 435E, 435F, 435G, 435J, 435K and 436. This is the first of a lot of large groups. I hope that we are able to discuss all the amendments. I dislike the groupings and I have said so, but I have been overruled in what I wanted to do to try to improve the debate and the structure of our proceedings.
	Today we move on to the worst part of the Bill; those in the department should hang their heads in shame for what they have done. Never have a Government been so savaged by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which took this part of the Bill apart in its very potent analysis. There is a huge lack of detail. It is very difficult to discuss a levy such as this when there is no detail. What has happened to the assurance given in another place? The Minister, Mr Healey, said,
	"we aim formally to consult on draft regulations this autumn".—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 31/1/08; col. 599.]
	Where are these draft regulations? Why have the Government not stood by what they said they would do? It makes our life extremely difficult, but perhaps the Government's aim is not to have a proper debate on this part of the Bill. In that way, they can have the flexibility to amend provisions without consultation or debate in the House.
	Let us make it absolutely clear: this is not a levy; it is a tax. This is just a variation of development land tax. I can see the scenario in the department: "We can't call it development land tax. What are we going to call it?". Someone came up with the bright idea of the community infrastructure levy and was told, "We can't call it that yet; that will be our fallback position. Let's think of something worse". They started off with the planning gain supplement, which created such an outcry that they were able to fall back comfortably on the community infrastructure levy, so now they have the tax they wanted.
	It is because of the question of whether this is a tax or a levy that I have tabled Amendment No. 435A, which would delete the words,
	"with the consent of the Treasury".
	I have seen those words in lots of Acts and have put them into Acts myself. They indicate quite clearly that this is a tax matter. This is not a levy or a charge, but just another tax.
	Yesterday we heard the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, saying that he was going to support small businesses and we heard at Question Time today about the help that the Government are giving small businesses. Yet with the other hand they stick a knife into small businesses by adding another tax. The timing could not be worse. It is just like the home information pack; that may have been a lovely idea when it was dreamt up but by the time it got on to the statute book, it was a disaster and has done nothing to help the housing market. CIL will do exactly the same. When this gets on to the statute book, we will be in the middle of a recession and nobody will want to develop anything because of the tax implications.
	Amendment No. 435C seeks to insert the words "part only of" the cost. Why should all the costs incurred be paid by this dreadful tax? Amendment No. 435D would provide that the tax should be paid on costs directly incurred in providing the infrastructure. Why should this tax help other projects rather than the one with which it is concerned? That is also the reason for the words "partly" and "wholly or partly", contained in Amendments Nos. 435E and 435F. If we are to have this tax and developers will have to pay for added infrastructure, it should be related directly to the project in question, not to something much wider. Then we have this terrible phrase at the end of subsection (2), where it says that the tax is paid on land,
	"the value of which increases due to permission for development".
	It is quite clear that somebody in the department does not know how development works, because planning permission does not necessarily mean an increase in value. This part of the Bill contradicts Clause 200(5), and it is for that reason that I would like to remove those words.
	Amendment No. 435J would delete reference to the Secretary of State. I think that the noble Baroness has an amendment in her own right on that, also deleting reference to the Secretary of State. That takes me on to Amendment No. 436, which again deletes the reference to Secretary of State as well as those to the Welsh Ministers and the Mayor of London. Why are they charging authorities? I beg to move.

Baroness Ford: I oppose the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, and, in so doing, I draw attention to my interests on the register. Like the noble Earl, I am a member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, but I take a different view to the introduction of the community infrastructure levy. I take that view based on almost 10 years' experience of major infrastructure projects across the length and breadth of England and the difficulties that all parties—central and local government, private developers and house builders—have encountered over that time in unlocking land for development because of lack of investment in infrastructure.
	The noble Earl drew attention to the previous idea of a planning gain supplement. He was not alone in having grave concerns about the PGS, but, to the Government's credit, there was widespread consultation on that, and the department went to great lengths to listen, understand that concern and modify its proposals in light of that concern. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Andrews for the lead she took in that work.
	There is no doubt in my mind that all across England lots of perfectly viable, sensible and sustainable developments are held up for want of a mechanism to fund the necessary infrastructure to release those developments. An example that I could give would be in west Bedford, where five major landowners could not unlock that development for the want of a relief road. Often the issue is not over a massive infrastructure; sometimes it is actually quite small. Because of that, it is below the radar of departments such as the Department of Transport, but it is simply too rich for the appetite for resources of a single authority. In the case of west Bedford, central Government brought all those landowners together and with the local council they were able to secure a voluntary contribution to unlock that infrastructure over a period. Again, in Milton Keynes there is now a tariff in place; the 18 landowners there voluntarily came together because they knew that it was in their own interests to unlock that development in a sustainable way and agreed to pay a tariff of just over £18,000 per house for that.
	In response to these amendments, I think that the Government have listened very hard. The planning gain supplement was regarded as unworkable and unfair on all sides; on the other hand, there is a very great measure of support in the private sector for the community infrastructure levy. We know that the British Property Federation, from which we have all received interesting and thoughtful correspondence, has concerns about some of the detail here. But it is evident to all of us that if we are to have proper sustainable development across England, we must simply do more to make a contribution to that very necessary infrastructure.
	If landowners have a windfall gain because of a change of planning status of the land, it is reasonable that they should pay some of that towards necessary infrastructure on account of that land being developed. I do not believe that the levy is unreasonable; there is widespread support for it; and it is a necessary procedure. For those reasons I urge noble Lords to resist the amendments.

Baroness Valentine: I support the community infrastructure levy in principle. I have grave concerns about the tax on increase in land value, a point the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, touched on. My amendments in this and subsequent groups relate exclusively to the community infrastructure levy. Before speaking to my amendments, I must mention that I am chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation.
	Amendments Nos. 435CA and 437CA in this group relate to the purpose of CIL. These are the first of seven of my amendments, which fall into three separate groups. They all fundamentally focus on one goal: the funding and delivery of infrastructure. The community infrastructure levy must be fairly and reasonably levied to broadly reflect the impact of development, through the development plan process, and the moneys collected must be spent on ensuring timely delivery of infrastructure.
	My two amendments in this group on the purpose of CIL would ensure that CIL is not a tax on land value and that references to it as such are removed. Critically, referring to increases in land value is inappropriate. First, it sends the wrong message about the purpose of CIL. CIL is not to tax the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning permission; it is to secure a contribution from development to additional infrastructure needs created by new development in the area.
	Secondly, the issues around using land value increases as a basis for assessing viability are highly complex. Any simple reference to uplifts in land value flowing from planning permission would inevitably lead to differing interpretations, not least because land can increase in value irrespective of development or planning permission.
	The principle is that CIL is not a tax on land value, and I would prefer to see any unintended implication that it is removed from the Bill. That is why Amendment No. 437CA suggests the removal of a subsection which is not required and, indeed, may contradict the later provision in Clause 201(3)(b). Amendment No. 435CA also removes the reference to land value as the basis for establishing CIL. Instead, CIL must be fairly and reasonably levied in a way that broadly reflects the impact of development through the development plan process. I will return to this point in later amendments.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I support very strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has said. Since the last war, we have suffered repeated attempts by successive Labour Governments to try to assess and tax the increase in land value as a result of planning permission. My memory goes back to the Land Commission. At that time, the Minister concerned was firmly advised that the provision was impossible and would simply choke off development; and the Land Commission had subsequently to be abolished.
	Then we had the development land tax. That did not work either. We have had the planning gain supplement, which happily seems to have been withdrawn but remains on the statute book. A later amendment deals with that. The community infrastructure levy is the latest attempt. The great mistake is to regard it as a form of capital gains tax on some extremely difficult-to-assess increase in land value. The evidence I have had from a number of organisations on this issue argues that it is extremely difficult to assess what is the increase in the value attributable to planning permission—a point wisely made by the noble Baroness. In practice, this will become a value—not an increase in value—and then the tax will be based on that.
	The problem there is that the value may bear absolutely no relation to the increase in infrastructure costs to which this community infrastructure levy is intended to be a contribution. It is no more than a contribution, to give local authorities some extra funds to pay part of the cost of the infrastructure to which a development can give rise. It has been pointed out to me that some of the biggest increases in value may come from retail developments—shopping centres—which may not require infrastructure costs beyond some possible increase in road capacity. Some of the developments that will carry considerable increases in infrastructure requirements may, in fact, pay considerably less. This must be tied to what the local authorities see as their infrastructure needs.
	An example pointed out to me was that of an expanding town; with a substantial increase in population, it will eventually need an expansion in the crematoria. How will that be tied in to the development costs? It is clearly an infrastructure need occasioned by the development leading to the increase in population. Simply to try to link this to the extremely difficult concept of the increase in value, however, seems fraught with difficulties.
	I take issue with one point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness. On Amendment No. 444, I shall be agreeing with the Delegated Powers Committee, which made a powerful point on this, and arguing that this is a charge, not a tax. It is a charge, in line with a great many others that have preceded it and on which this House has always had its part to play. My amendment is that both Houses should therefore be involved in the approval of the regulations. I am mildly surprised that my noble friend has added his name to it; no doubt he will explain at some stage. However, that is by the way, and we will come to the argument later.
	There lies at the heart of the difficulties here, which will be addressed by a number of amendments, the concept that you can somehow tax the increase in value attributable to planning permission. All the advice that I have had suggests that that is in fact a near impossible task. I hope that we will be able in Committee—and, later, on Report—to make some changes to link the charging schedules which local authorities will draw up to their development plans, so that the levy on developments will thereafter bear a close relationship to the infrastructure needs of each local authority.
	It may be that that is the Government's intention, but the advice that I have had is that it is not expressed properly in the Bill. We need to change the Bill, and will come to some of these amendments later on. I emphasise that the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has put her finger on an extremely important point.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have tabled Amendment No. 436 in this group, which deals with a simple and narrow point that I shall address before returning to the generality of the discussion. The amendment is not perfectly worded, but simply makes the point that there should be only one charging authority. By that, I mean that people undertaking development who will pay this charge, or whatever we choose to call it—I shall come to that in a moment—should have only one bill to deal with. It will be immensely complicated if there is any possibility of their receiving two, three, five or any number of bills.
	This is a probing amendment designed to ensure that the Government clarify precisely how they will deal with the dilemma which is immediately apparent to anybody who has read the Bill and noted that the London boroughs may charge authorities as planning authorities and that the Mayor of London may also be a charging authority. We have heard of an instance where this problem has to be overcome. Occasionally, in other parts of the country there are cross-boundary developments. Such a development will be difficult if one part pays one rate while another pays an entirely different rate because it happens to be in an authority that takes a different view of what the charge should be. Is this a charge or a tax? My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding properly addressed that and rightly said that it should be a charge, with local authorities having the discretion to set it within an approved system.
	The other place clearly takes a different view and sees this as a Revenue matter. The Treasury clearly sees it as a Revenue matter. When you sit down and consider the sum that the Government expect to raise from this charge, as suggested in at least one of their consultation papers—£500 million is mentioned—it is big enough to be a tax. We are into the argument that, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but my noble friend raised the fundamental point that one classification gives us some control over the measure in the future whereas the other does not. I consider that in this instance we ought to have a role to play.
	Moreover, this is nothing new. We should not be left with the impression which might have been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, that developers are not already subject, or may be subject, to paying a very considerable contribution towards all infrastructure costs. Section 106 has been in place for a long time. I know from personal experience that it can include playing fields, road improvements, sewerage extension and things that can be way off site. They may be related to a development, but they also provide real benefit to the whole of the wider community. We should not think this is an entirely novel provision that has not been around for a very long time. Indeed, my noble friend gave the background history to it.
	However, as I see it, the measure is designed to catch a lot of development that at present does not contribute towards infrastructure. Whether you call this a tax or a charge, it is an additional way of raising money for public finance. We have been given no assurance—I wish that we had—that the existing sources of funding used for these purposes will not be diminished because this new charge is being brought in. If there is any hint that this might be a substitute for existing sources of funding, we are doomed to failure. I suspect that for a time we are doomed to failure anyway, or the Government are because they have an unfortunate but immaculate sense of timing. They are picking the worst possible moment to introduce a charge on the construction and development industry. I put it in its widest sense.
	We should realise that this charge usually has to be paid from the landowner's receipts; but so did Section 106. One must also remember that this will catch a lot of development where there is no change of ownership and in very many instances there will be no enhanced value, perhaps apart from the cost of construction. I am sorry if this seems like a Second Reading speech; it is a Second Reading speech, but it is absolutely vital that we should get the context of what is happening correct.
	I am immensely sorry that this provision is here at this time. That is not to say that there might not have been a time when this would have been more favourably received. We continually load fiscal charges on to desirable developments. There is only one long-term effect as a result, which is that the price of everything rises. It will be paid by people improving their houses, if the improvement requires planning permission. It will be paid as part of the cost of site value and the construction cost of a house and, ultimately, it will be paid by house purchasers. It is another twist of the inflationary screw.
	It may be said that this is justifiable, but I remind the Minister of the time when the development land tax was proposed. That was a deliberate attempt to tax enhanced value. What happened was quite simple; all development land disappeared from the market for as long as that proposal was around. It remained off the market until the price had risen to the extent that the receipt to the landowner, plus the tax, was sufficient that he was not losing money as a result of the introduction of the charge.
	We have picked another one of those glorious moments when that reaction will be significant. The only thing I want to add is that I doubt whether any local authority will want to consider a charge of this nature at present. I only have very limited intelligence—by which I mean information coming to me—but we ought to appreciate that on planning committee agendas, applications for new build have virtually disappeared. There are still applications around for housing extensions and that sort of thing, but very few applications are coming forward for anyone to do anything. I strongly suspect that it is much more important to get the development process moving forward again than it is to introduce this charge.

Baroness Hamwee: We welcome the fact that there is a little flesh on the skeleton, although it is still fairly emaciated. There have been comments about the timing of this. If the Government had not run into trouble in the Commons over the principle of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, we might well have been debating this part of the Bill about six months ago, and the comments might have been a little different.
	Section 106 and the planning gain supplement have been mentioned. The advantage of Section 106 compared with the planning gain supplement was that the community could see the benefit that would come to it, if not as a result of the development at any rate linked to the development. The community could see benefits which might counter the disadvantages of a development, although Section 106 seems to have pushed at the limits, possibly to an improper extent. If the new levy brings a degree of propriety—perhaps that would be a bit strong—rather, if it puts things into the proper pigeon holes, that is to be welcomed. I agree with the comments made about the difficulty of defining and assessing value and I, too, see this as a charge, although I wonder whether the window tax of centuries ago was a tax or a charge.
	I want to ask a question and make a point on government Amendments Nos. 436A and 436B. I disagree with the noble Earl and support making the Mayor of London a charging authority, because, as I understand it, if the mayor is the planning authority for an application, it is necessary for the mayor to be the charging authority as well. What is important is how the money is spent, the relationship between the mayor and the boroughs and the relationship between the boroughs where the mayor is not a party, but the development may affect more than one borough. Outside London there could be a similar situation.
	Amendment No. 436B deals with joint committees. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that it covers an arrangement between the mayor and the boroughs. Will the Minister's amendment deal with that, because there needs to be a structure in which everyone can have confidence?

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I have only one series of major amendments today that deal with CIL, but I indicated at Second Reading that I have a series of questions which I will attach to other noble Lords' amendments throughout the day.
	My question has already been asked by other noble Lords, but perhaps I may put it in a rather different way and attach it to Amendment No. 435G in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. If CIL is a tax, as it were, on the rise in the value of land as a result of development, presumably, if a development does not involve a rise in land value, no CIL would be charged, although I notice that Clause 205 indicates that CIL would still be payable if there were no increase. However, what will happen if there is a decrease in the value of the land? Believe you me, for business purposes many landowners undertake developments that actually decrease the value of their land. I have done that myself.
	I pick up the theme that other noble Lords have mentioned as to whether CIL is a tax on the rise in land value or genuinely a levy, which it purports to be, which attempts to raise money for extra infrastructure caused by the development. The same question applies. A development may reduce the strain on the infrastructure, such as the creation of a key worker's house, or be neutral vis-à-vis the strain on the infrastructure, such as an agricultural development that merely involves enlarging a cattle building, putting up a slurry store or replacing a building on a like-for-like basis—such as the renewal of an office building. Although it is called a levy, is this a tax on renewals? Can the Minister clarify at this early stage whether CIL is a tax or a levy?

Lord Reay: Amendment No. 435GA, which is in this group, extends the purpose of CIL to allow compensation to be paid to those who have been adversely affected by permitted developments. I realise that there would need to be consequential amendments if this amendment were accepted, for example, to extend the application of Clause 202(1). I am also uncertain about how this amendment would interact with the new government amendment on compensation, which we debated and adopted last week, replacing the former Clause 151. That amendment, as I understand it, would restore the right of landowners, but not licensees, tenants or anyone else, to bring a claim for compensation by means of a claim for nuisance. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that when she replies.
	My amendment relates to my Amendment No. 433, to which I will speak later, which bans the unregulated practice of developers making financial offers at their own discretion to local interests in an attempt to influence planning decisions in their favour. I should like to see all developers, including those of wind power generators, liable to CIL and the proceeds made available to compensate those whose livelihood or health, as well as property, has been adversely affected by the development that has been permitted. That would do much to deal with the problem of the divisiveness that that practice has introduced into communities.
	It is not clear to me whether wind power generators are caught by CIL. I should be grateful if the Minister could say something about that with and without, if that is possible, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. This is a probing amendment.

Lord Cobbold: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 198 stand part of the Bill because I wish to probe the basic concept of CIL. I have two related concerns, which have already been raised by several speakers. First, I understand it is proposed to introduce CIL while retaining Section 106 planning obligations. That puts potentially excessive burdens on the developer. I declare an interest as a landowner in Hertfordshire. Secondly, a combination of CIL and Section 106 impositions may result in widespread withholding of potential development land, as happened in the case of development land tax in the 1970s. I do not wish to interrupt today's important debate on the detailed provisions of the Bill, but I should like the Minister's assurance that if Section 106 agreements are to be retained, the combined burden must be kept within reason.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall make a brief speech as a footnote from a flank to the observations made by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith from the Front Bench concerning the timing of this legislation and the state of the economy. I realise that when the Government formulated this policy they might not have foreseen the situation in which the economy finds itself and that events have overtaken them. The flank nature of my observation is that I shall allude to planning in the island of Ireland. It is well known that planning laws are more relaxed in the Republic of Ireland, some would say to the disadvantage of the beauty of the Irish countryside. In Northern Ireland 30 or 40 years ago, planning laws were considerably stronger, to the benefit of the landscape. During the Troubles, which inevitably led to a massive economic slowdown, the British Government relaxed the planning laws in Northern Ireland in order to stimulate economic activity. When the Troubles came to an end, it was possible to return to the status quo. Is the Minister contemplating on behalf of the Government that there will be a fine tuning, in the sense of timing, with regard to the introduction of this legislation if it goes through?

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I rise to express sympathy for the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. There is a real danger, not only in the Bill but in the consultation documents, of not merely implying but saying that CIL is, effectively, a charge or a tax—or whatever it will be called—on development gain. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is an ingenious solution. If the Minister were able to respond positively to the idea behind the amendment, reassurance would be provided that, in discussions, that part of the consultation document would disappear. In expressing sympathy for that, I add that the debate on clause stand part is the only time when we can talk about the principle as opposed to how what is proposed is brought about.
	I continue to express to the Minister what she knows are my deepest reservations about the line that the Government are taking. I forecast that enormous tangles will result from this. The idea that it will provide certainty will turn out to be a myth. There will be enormous variations across local government areas and they will tend to emerge, not de minimis, but at modest levels because of the fear, on which I shall comment in a moment, of stopping some developments. In my view, it will be set at modest levels. It is very wise to keep Section 106 because, in my view, local authorities will still want to get additional revenue from developments which are large and which will produce substantial gains. I can see that that is what will happen. If that were not to be done, as a matter of logic and straightforward economics, once you apply a charge, a tax—call it what you want—to all developments, at the margin some developments will become unviable.
	This is the point in the Bill when it is worth putting on the record our very grave reservations. In due course, if it came to a vote, I would not vote against the Government, but I simply give a warning that they are opening up a pitfall. As the current recession and depression in development and in property prices—housing, commercial and industrial—show, working out what kind of rates to charge, what you are going to bring in, and when, is a very tricky business indeed. Values have fallen by between 20 and 50 per cent. As the recession takes hold, you will probably find that property values and development values fall even more sharply which will make a mockery of this system if it is in operation. However, this concept would regularise much better the framework in which local authorities set out their infrastructure needs and would provide a basis on which comprehensive discussions could take place with anyone who wants to undertake development. That is warmly welcomed. However, I am not at all convinced that that framework, which is a big step forward, needs to be supported by this kind of funding, in part or in whole.

Baroness Andrews: This has been a very important first debate on this part of the Bill.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I apologise, but I did not declare an interest. I am a partner in a business which works in the property development area.

Baroness Andrews: I thank my noble friend for making that clear. This has been an important debate on the fundamental issues of the community infrastructure levy. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, who has brought forward her great experience in positive support of CIL itself. A number of very important questions have been raised in the Committee which I shall try to address, but I begin by setting the scene, as it has moved on since the summer. This is probably more in the nature of a Second Reading speech, but the Committee needs to know how we addressed the issues that arose from the questions raised at Second Reading.
	I will refer to the community infrastructure levy as CIL; that will shorten our debate by at least an hour. CIL is a significant change to the way in which development contributions towards community infrastructure are secured. The fundamental point—to address immediately the point raised by my noble friend Lord Woolmer—is that we seek to do that in a way that ensures that development is deliverable and sustainable; that it is framed by the local development plan; that it is related to the specific costs of infrastructure that the community needs; and that, for the first time, we will have certain, transparent and predictable levels of funding to fund the impact on infrastructure that new development generates.
	I am sure that noble Lords will have read the report we issued in August, which went into a great deal of detail about our thinking behind the proposal and our testing of assumptions. A great deal of work was done on those relationships in that document. The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, said that the proposal for the levy commands wide support; I can endorse that. As far as we are aware, no local government planning or developer representative body objects in principle to our proposal. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for saying just that when she opened her speech. For example, there is support in principle from the CBI, the Local Government Association, the British Property Federation, the TCPA, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, and many others. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Woolmer do not accept some of those views. I hope that I can persuade them in our debates that there is a lot of merit in what we propose—that it is not only a better system but the right system to provide what we so badly need in future.
	It is worth reflecting on that consensus, because everyone is agreed that we need a fairer, more certain and more transparent way to secure developer contributions. That is crucial in the light of what many noble Lords have said about the current state of the economy and the need for long-term secure planning. We need to understand what we have to do and be as transparent and clear about managing risks ahead as possible.
	Developers have consistently said to us that they find the existing negotiated system of planning obligations or Section 106 agreements slow and unpredictable. They are certainly not transparent. We know from our recent research that it is the most major developments that bear the burden of contributing to local infrastructure. Only 14 per cent of residential planning permissions make some form of contribution through planning obligations. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—this is about capturing more of the development so that it can contribute to the key infrastructures that we use.
	We are not talking simply about roads but about hospitals, play spaces, schools and green spaces. We are talking about the green infrastructure and the physical infrastructure but also the social infrastructure. It is all contained in the definition of what the community needs to thrive—what the development plan must work out to ensure that the community has all the resources it needs to thrive. Most minor development makes no contribution.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to household development. I make absolutely clear that we intend to use our regulation-making powers to exempt household development for homeowners, so there is no question that that will be caught by CIL. We have been very clear about that.
	I know that we will discuss the impact of the current economic difficulties. As I said, the demographic, social and environmental trends will not change in the long term. We must ensure that, whatever are our short-term difficulties, we are planning for suitable infrastructure for long-term sustainability. That is exactly what CIL is intended to do, and why it is so important to get right in that equation the explicit relationship between the costs of infrastructure, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, and long-term sustainability.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sorry to intervene at this point, but unless the Minister is coming to it, she has missed the point. Different developments impose entirely different pressures on infrastructure costs. That is not represented in the Bill at all. The Bill does not refer to what infrastructure demands will be made by particular developers. There seems to be a flat rate across the board. She may be going to tell us that the schedules will somehow draw a distinction, but I have seen nothing to suggest that.

Baroness Andrews: There are several issues. CIL is a standard charge—an average charge that will be worked out on the basis of assessments, which we will talk about. Specific forms of funding will not be raised for specific bits of infrastructure. The local authority's job will be to work out the overall costs of the infrastructure that it needs and the overall amounts that can reasonably and viably be raised by CIL. We can have that debate when we talk about value. It is a rational process, which we do not have at the moment.
	As I say, the key attraction of CIL is that it will be a straightforward standard charge on development. It might, for example, be pounds per square metre of floor space. It will be framed by the local development plan, and, crucially, it will be independently tested to ensure that the result will be viable and will facilitate, not choke, development. It must be published in advance by the local authority so that a developer can know, perhaps months or years in advance of developing, what they will be asked to pay based on the characteristics of development.
	I invite noble Lords to contrast that idea with the existing system of ad hoc negotiations conducted in private, sometimes on the basis of either an unclear or an untested policy. Indeed, the emergence of tariff schemes based on the existing legislation indicates that local authorities and developers alike now realise that we must urgently standardise and simplify what has been a very complex area of planning. That is why there is such support for this measure. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, again that it continues to sit alongside Section 106. It is a voluntary charge, and it will be up to local authorities to decide what will work best in their areas, given the choices that they have. Most infrastructure will continue to be provided through government funds, as it always is.
	The rate to be paid will be decided at the local level, not by government, and it must be based on sound infrastructure planning to underpin the local development plan. However, it must evidently also have regard to the realities of development economics. As my noble friend pointed out, the whole purpose of CIL is to facilitate development. The amendments provide safeguards to ensure that local authorities, and the community, take proper account of infrastructure needs and the viability of development when setting their charges.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the spectre of a development land tax and a planning-gain supplement. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, expressed concern that even if it is technically correct to refer to land value uplift in these clauses—I believe that it is—the overall tone of the clauses, particularly the focus on land value uplift in the purpose clause, still leaves some with the misplaced impression that we intend to reintroduce PGS. I hope that our debate today will alleviate that concern, but let me be clear; CIL is not PGS, for the very reasons given by my noble friend Lady Ford. PGS was intended to be levied as a percentage of land value uplift on a case-by-case basis. CIL is an area-wide standard charge. PGS would have been set at a single national rate. CIL is set locally. PGS would have been UK-wide. CIL is an optional local tool. PGS would have been collected and redistributed by HMRC. CIL is collected and retained by local planning authorities. The contrast is significant. If we were to introduce our previous proposals for a planning-gain supplement, we would require substantial new primary legislation.
	The most useful comparison is therefore the emergence of tariff schemes, which have grown up organically out of local authority practice. In fact, CIL extends an existing idea that is familiar to many in local government and development communities. It also provides additional benefits. It will be easier to fund larger pieces of infrastructure that are needed as a result of the cumulative impact of development, it will increase the transparency and accountability of charges, and the accompanying reduction in the scope of planning obligations over time will reduce negotiating time and increase certainty for developers.
	This policy has not sprung up out of the blue. The reports by Sir Michael Lyons, Kate Barker and Sir Rod Eddington have all considered local government finance, housing and planning, transport infrastructure issues, and the things that are bedevilling, weakening and frustrating them. We are taking action to address that, not least through our widely welcomed new Planning Policy Statement 12, which promotes more robust infrastructure planning at the local level. I emphasise that CIL is part of the solution. It will be ring-fenced for infrastructure, and it will be appropriately monitored, audited and reported on, but we will not seek to solve all infrastructure delivery issues through it because of the Government's commitment to fund infrastructure.
	The document that we produced on 5 August was the result of a very fruitful dialogue with all the bodies that I have mentioned. That dialogue continues, as I will say in many of our debates this afternoon. There is a great deal of detail to work out, which is why we have constructed these powers in an enabling way, as I explained at Second Reading. The existing system has evolved over time, as we expect CIL will do as local authority practice develops and matures.
	In July, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed concerns about the extent of these enabling powers, but I am delighted to say that its latest report indicates that the amendments that I am presenting today go a very long way to addressing its concerns. They clarify which authorities will be able to charge CIL, they set out in the Bill the core elements of the process of establishing a charging schedule, and they cap certain enforcement powers.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who cannot be in his place today, and the committee officials for their great assistance over the summer in helping us to clarify the legislation. We will certainly attempt to make progress on the committee's remaining concern that the complex issue of crystallising the identity of the liable party will give rise to some very difficult issues in law and determinations. We will work very hard on that, and I pay tribute to the work that my officials did over the summer to produce the amendments, which will make a significant difference to the surety with which we can discuss these issues. It has been extremely hard work, but we now have a lot more detail that we can discuss.
	I should note that there is support for our enabling approach from bodies outside, because they want that continuing dialogue and to be able to influence what will happen, and we are happy to facilitate that. I am happy that we have the Opposition's support in principle for CIL. It really is a very important issue, and I hope that I have set out the context for our discussion on the amendments. I shall try to speed through the amendments as we go.
	The first group of amendments relates to the purpose of CIL and the authorities that should be able to charge it, which we have discussed. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, tabled a number of amendments on the purpose of CIL. His Amendment No. 435A would remove the need for the Treasury's agreement to the regulations implementing CIL. Treasury involvement does not imply a tax. There is nothing unusual or sinister about Treasury consent being needed for regulations. In this case, CIL relates to the raising and spending of significant amounts of money, and it is right that the Treasury should have a formal role in ensuring that it operates effectively. There are plenty of precedents for this approach. The Treasury is involved in a wide range of measures. Section 365 of the Communications Act 2003, for example, requires Treasury consent for the Secretary of State to make regulations that set the TV licence fee and for entitlement to concessions. I could quote many others. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, clearly made the point that this levy is a local charge concerned with revenues for local authorities.
	The noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 435C, 435E and 435F are linked. They seek to ensure that CIL may only partly fund part of the costs of infrastructure, which seems unnecessarily restrictive. While I accept that in most cases CIL will simply form part of the funding package for infrastructure, these amendments would preclude the possibility that CIL could provide the entire funding for a piece of local infrastructure, which could be relatively small; for example, a new playground. The amendment would appear to force local authorities to find some other funding source for the smallest requirement, even if CIL could fund it. We do not want to lose that flexibility.
	Amendment No. 435D would place an additional restriction on the use of CIL. It would mean that only direct costs incurred in providing infrastructure may be covered. It is unclear what "direct" means, so it could make this clause a source of potential legal dispute if the courts are invited to decide how direct a cost the charging authority is entitled to meet through CIL. We consider that the approach we have taken already establishes a sufficiently direct connection between the money raised under CIL and the delivery of infrastructure. I hope that the noble Lord feels his proposal has been met.
	I turn now to the amendments which seek to alter the overall purpose of CIL. Amendment No. 435G appears to be at odds with the noble Earl's Amendment No. 437D, which appears to seek to apply CIL only to those developments that realise an increase in value when they are sold. Amendment No. 435CA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, is partially in line with the current purpose of CIL. I agree with the noble Baroness entirely when she says that CIL must be fairly and reasonably levied, and linked to the cost of infrastructure. The amendment suggests that development should contribute to providing the infrastructure needed,
	"to support the development of an area".
	We have said that CIL funding, ultimately, is drawn from the increase in value that results from the granting of planning permission. We have done so in order to help explain a matter of fact and to make the law clear and precise. From our discussions with the industry and from what the noble Baroness and the Committee have said, I know that the notion of value is less relevant to some parts of the development sector than others. It is different in the commercial sector and in the housebuilding sector. We take that point.
	I know that the industry feels that this is rather too precise a way of expressing it and that perhaps it is expressed in terms more familiar to economists than anyone else. I can tell the Committee that we will continue to discuss with the industry whether these concerns about the tone of legislation can be addressed. I should add that the noble Baroness's amendment would also delete the specification of who is liable to pay CIL.
	The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, come into this range of questions about land values. In most cases, as we know, development happens because the developers see that the value of their properties will increase as a result, which was inherent in the design of PGS. If land values had not increased, there would be no PGS to pay. But the industry was clear that it did not want an instrument that required a site-by-site assessment of liability. We can understand that; it is precisely what we are trying to meet. It wants a standard charge, which we have tried to provide with CIL. These charges are averaging in their effect.
	Clause 205 allows a charge to be imposed where there is no land value uplift or where there is a decrease, because it is an average charge. That said, our regulation-making powers also allow for charging authorities not to impose a charge in the first place on classes of development where value did not generally increase. We rather expect that the guidance we give to charging authorities will remind them that it would be unwise to impose CIL if it prevents development from occurring. All this must be cast in the framework of what will work and what will promote and facilitate development. We are talking about common sense as much as calculation here. The two surely must go together.
	It is set out in the August document that the Government are exploring how we might also need an arrangement to deal with truly exceptional cases. In those three ways, I hope that we can arrive at an understanding of how this will work to cover these different situations that develop on the ground in relation to what the local authorities will try to do.
	The noble Baroness's amendment would delete the specification of who is liable to pay CIL. I do not think that the DPRRC would be content with that. It has told us that more rather than less detail is needed on where liability for CIL lies. So we are working hard to see whether we can provide more detail. Accepting this amendment would worsen the situation by removing any indication at all.
	Amendment No. 437CA, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, is related to the amendments to Clause 198. The amendment would delete Clause 200(5), which would remove the ability for CIL to be levied on a development, whether or not the value of land has increased as a result of the granting of planning permission in that case. This amendment raises the prospect that each and every development proposal to which CIL might apply would need to be the subject of a specific assessment of value uplift, which I am sure is not what the industry has said. It is too expensive and has many other defects. CIL allows us to move away from case-by-case to average standard charges.
	I understand that parts of the property and development industry have some concerns about the concept of value created by development not only in Clauses 198 and 200(5), which set out the general purpose of CIL, but also in Clause 201, which makes provision for the detail about how a specific charging schedule should be created. We are continuing to discuss with industry whether there is a better way to achieve our shared goal of ensuring that the economic viability of development is properly reflected and taken into account in the design of CIL. Those discussions are not yet complete, but I am still willing to consider bringing forward an amendment on this issue on Report if we can reach agreement. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
	Amendment No. 435GA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, would add to Clause 198(2) and therefore provide an additional purpose of CIL to compensate those who are adversely affected by permitted developments. We have been very clear about the purpose of CIL. It is a new mechanism to raise additional revenue to help delivery of the infrastructure needed. It is not about offering compensation to those who are affected by permitted development. CIL has never been conceived in this way and the rest of Part 11 is not consistent with such an approach. The obligation under Clause 202(1) is for CIL regulations to ensure that CIL is spent on infrastructure.
	The noble Lord asked me specifically about wind turbines. We have an amendment later on which I think I will be able to assure him that wind turbines, because they are not buildings, will not be covered by CIL. As he knows, there are already mechanisms and systems in place for addressing those adversely affected by permitted development. It is inappropriate to extend the purpose of CIL in this way.
	Government Amendment No. 436A would replace Clause 199. The amendment has been tabled to provide clarity about which authorities will be CIL charging authorities. It partly responds to the concerns that the DPRRC raised in its 12th report about the current Clause 199 since it leaves to regulations the specification of which authorities would be empowered to charge. I think we have satisfied the committee so that it will not come back to this in its 13th report.
	Amendment No. 436A is a substantial amendment, which I think will be welcome. First, it removes from the Bill any possibility for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to be empowered as CIL charging authorities. That is a major change. Our August policy document explains that infrastructure sometimes crosses local authority boundaries or sometimes needs contributions from one or more authorities. We have listened to the local government community, which tells us that local authorities can work together on a voluntary basis to identify items of infrastructure of common interest and put in place CIL charging schedules to raise the necessary contributions without the need for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to levy a charge. Our decision to remove the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers as potential CIL charging authorities is a vote of confidence in local authorities.
	The second change will be to reconfigure Clause 199 to make it clear that a starting point of the Bill is that local planning authorities will be the CIL charging authorities. "Local planning authority" has the same meaning here as it has in Section 37 of the PCPA 2004 as regards England and Section 78 of the Act as regards Wales. The CIL charging authority will be the local authority with responsibility for preparing local development plans. CIL is closely linked to the development plan process and is the logical choice. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked what happens when boundaries are straddled. I refer him to paragraph 446 of the August CIL document. It states:
	"Where a development proposal straddles local planning authority boundaries, the Government proposes that, as with current planning obligation policies, the relevant CIL charging schedule (if any) would be applied to the parts of the development within the relevant authority".
	We have addressed the point in that paragraph, which goes into some detail.
	Amendment No. 436A also specifies that the Mayor of London is a charging authority for Greater London in addition to the London boroughs. We think that it is right that this should be so in order that the mayor, as a strategic authority, can raise additional revenue for strategic infrastructure projects. The boroughs might establish CILs for the infrastructure needed to support the development envisaged in their local development plans, while the mayor might do so across London for strategic infrastructure.
	Crossrail is a clear example of this. Indeed, the heads of terms between the Government and Transport for London on Crossrail which was laid in the Library of the House last year list Transport for London as underwriting £300 million in revenue to be raised from a CIL. This amendment covers that point. We expect that the boroughs will collect CIL on behalf of the mayor so that developers have only one payment to make to a single authority. I hope that that meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I know that he was concerned about the confusion which might arise from there being two Bills. We expect the boroughs to act as a single collection authority.

Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when she is getting through her response so well, but I want to raise a further query on this narrow point. Her description seems to suggest that the mayor will be the charging authority even on occasions when the mayor is not the planning authority. Can she confirm whether that is so?

Baroness Andrews: My understanding is that the mayor can be the charging authority only when he acts as the planning authority. The noble Baroness also raised issues about joint committees. We do not expect these arrangements to reflect joint committee arrangements. The joint committees between local authorities are separate and we shall come to them later, because there is a distinction to be made.
	The third significant change made by Amendment No. 436A is that the CIL regulations may provide for substitute authorities to be CIL charging authorities in place of the local planning authority, an example of which might be the Isles of Scilly if the Council of the Isles of Scilly has its planning functions withdrawn, for instance. The council would be granted planning functions by order under Section 116 of the 2004 Act. We think that it is important to provide that power.
	A second need for this power relates to the national parks, which have already been a feature of our debates. A national park is a "local planning authority" and prepares a development plan for its area. The national park authority must then consider the infrastructure needs of its area in line with the Government's policy in PPS12. Clause 199 therefore provides that it will be the CIL charging authority for its area, and not the local authorities within the park boundaries. However, it is important that this is discussed further with stakeholders, including the park authorities, to ensure that it makes sense. Some, with their unusual layout, consist of small areas within other charging authorities. We do not want to create a nonsense here, so for reasons of scale and efficiency it might not be thought appropriate for a small separate area to be the CIL charging authority. The amendment provides the flexibility to continue those discussions.
	Amendment No. 435K, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, covers similar ground. It would prevent the CIL regulations being able to empower the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers and the Mayor of London as charging authorities. I am delighted to say that we are in agreement on at least two of those three authorities, but, for the reasons I have set out, we have proposed that the mayor should be a charging authority.
	The second government Amendment in this grouping, Amendment No. 436B, arises as a consequence of the restructuring of Clause 199 by Amendment No. 436A. The unamended clause would allow for joint committees of local planning authorities established under Section 29 of the 2004 Act to act as CIL charging authorities. Therefore, to allow this to continue, government Amendment No. 436B allows CIL regulations to provide that joint committees established under Section 29, where they include a CIL charging authority, are to exercise CIL functions in their area on behalf of the CIL charging authority. The new subsection (3), which mirrors the order-making power in Section 29(4)(a) of the 2004 Act, will permit CIL regulations to set out how joint committees can exercise those charging authority functions. Provision can be made corresponding to provision relating to joint committees in Part VI of the Local Government Act 1972. It is right that where, as we foresee, local authorities cooperate and enter into joint committee arrangements, they should be able to charge CIL as part of those new arrangements, not least to deliver sub-regional infrastructure across local authority boundaries. However, that is entirely a matter for each local authority.
	A few other amendments remain in this grouping. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, tabled Amendment No. 436. I am a little unclear about this issue. The first possible intention of this amendment would be to provide that a developer should only be charged CIL by a single charging authority. Government Amendment No. 436A sets out that it is the plan-making authority that will be the CIL charging authority—which I hope clarifies the position. However, in London, given the special position of the mayor, we propose that the mayor should be involved. The amendment could also intend to require that the CIL regulations must prevent the mayor from being empowered to charge CIL in London. The alternative, that the London boroughs would be prevented from establishing a CIL if the mayor chose to do so, is equally unpalatable. However, this amendment could alternatively be designed to ensure that CIL revenue from only a single charging authority can be applied to any one item of infrastructure identified through the development plan process. In many cases that might be what happens; but in some instances the infrastructure that might be needed to support growth could be quite substantial, such as a significant flood defence scheme or new motorway junction. CIL is much better placed than existing schemes to fund such infrastructure, and these larger sub-regional pieces of infrastructure benefit from more than one boundary.
	I have a note that states that I need to correct something that I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She asked if the mayor will be a charging authority only when he is the planning authority. The answer to that is no, although I said yes. We propose that the mayor will be able to charge CIL on all planning permissions in London because he will determine only a handful of applications a year. Setting a charge for all applications will enable lower charges. I will write to the noble Baroness on this point because it needs a proper letter, and of course I shall copy it to all noble Lords who are taking part in these debates. My letters go to all noble Lords, rather like TV licences.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who cannot be in his place today, was also concerned about how CIL would work in London, and he has asked me to ensure that his concerns are registered. I hope that I have done that, but I should say also that we are continuing to work with stakeholders in London to see whether we can do anything additionally to ensure that both the mayor and the boroughs are able to set charges that address their infrastructure needs without overburdening individual developments. He, along with others, is concerned about the eventual impact on viability. I hope that that meets his point.
	The problem with going back to the conditions suggested in Amendment No. 436 could be that the voluntary approach to the funding of sub-regional infrastructure would have to be prevented in the CIL regulations, which we do not think is right. It would mean that a CIL could not be used to support sub-regional infrastructure in a meaningful way. For that reason, we have a problem with the amendment. However, I will write to noble Lords in more detail on the point. My flow was interrupted by the need to address and correct what I said previously.
	Amendment No. 435J seeks to delete the reference to "Section 206" and "Secretary of State" in the table at the end of the clause which is intended to reflect what Part 11 contains. There is no benefit in amending it so that it is incomplete, and the House authorities will update it as necessary to reflect any changes to the content of Part 11 of the Bill. It can safely be left with the House authorities.
	Government Amendment No. 435H seeks to update the text in subsection (3) by providing that the table therein describes the provisions in Part 11. As a consequence of other government amendments that will add more detail on CIL to the Bill, the clauses in Part 11 which follow Clause 198 will no longer only deal with aspects of the CIL regulations but will also expressly set out provisions in regard to CIL. For example, we have tabled amendments on the procedures to be adopted in producing charging schedules and so on. This amendment would reflect the fact that these important changes have been made. They are substantive and on the face of the Bill and not in CIL regulations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, indicated that he intended to oppose Clause 198 standing part of the Bill. Given my explanation of how CIL will operate and the fact that it is supported by a wide range of industry and local government groups, I hope that he will feel able to support the clause for the reasons that I and other noble Lords have given.
	This has been an important debate that has covered a range of different issues, some that are substantial and others that are technical and detailed. I hope that noble Lords have been able to follow what I have said. I am happy to write to clarify details, to continue discussions and to meet noble Lords between now and Report on anything they would like to know about how this will work.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to the Minister—I am never sure whether I should interrupt her when she is in full spate, and sometimes it is easier to deal with this kind of query at the end. She said that household development would not be eligible to pay the charge, but what are the limits of household development? There must be a limit somewhere, otherwise you could have a two-bedroom cottage being extended into a mansion and not being eligible for the charge. There is also a marginal question of whether building one house is household development. We need to be clear about the definition of what is, or is not, eligible development. In view of what the Minister said about writing, perhaps she would prefer to write on this specific issue. It is important to individuals and builders across the whole country.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply; she has lifted the lid on some of the questions and problems which this part of the Bill raises. However, she did not answer one important question, and it would be of great help if she could. When will these regulations be available? The regulations will answer many of the questions. The question which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has just asked the Minister is very important—but where are the regulations? Until we get them we will go on flapping around trying to get answers.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, bowled the Minister a beautiful googly. It now appears that there will be two charging authorities in London, the mayor and the local borough, whereas if you are outside London, the local authority will be the only body able to charge. Would it not have been so much easier if this had been set out before us? We could have discussed it and had a much more sensible debate. Does the Minister now have an answer for me on regulations?

Baroness Andrews: I am afraid that it is the kind of answer that Minister's sometimes give. The department spent the summer working to ensure that we met the DPRRC's requirements to put as much as we could in the Bill so that the Committee could debate the CIL architecture as fully as possible,. The regulations are being worked on. We are in major discussions with a large number of stakeholders—we will be happy to involve the noble Earl—and will bring them forward as soon as we can. We will do so with the best expedition.

The Earl of Caithness: So Mr. Healey's assurance to the House of Commons that they would be ready for this autumn is in fact worthless, because they are not ready?

Baroness Andrews: No. I did not contradict my honourable friend in the other place at all. I said that we would bring them forward as soon as possible, which we certainly will.

The Earl of Caithness: Mr Healey said that it would be done by the autumn, but clearly it has not been done.
	Although it has been a wide-ranging debate, I particularly wish to draw attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said. She and I raised the same point but we attacked it from different points of view. I think that her amendments are better than mine. It is obviously the case that the levy should deliver infrastructure that is to the benefit of the development, its occupiers and users, but if you link CIL to the land value then that will make it a tax on the planning permission rather than what the charge is supposed to be about. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right—and I said it, too—that, in key development areas where planning permission is likely, uplift will already have been taken into account in the price. It is confusing to have a reference in the Bill to value as a result of planning permission. It undermines the reason for CIL and what the noble Baroness is trying to do with it. However, I understand that she is still thinking about this and I hope that she will bring forward more sensible wording on Report.
	The Minister did not deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that there would be no reduction in central government funding. Will the charge be used as an opportunity for central government to reduce funding of local authorities? It is clear that developers, individuals and, indeed, bigger companies will be charged CIL, but individuals and small businesses will not get any benefit at all. There will be no increase in infrastructure in their development and they will not get any uplift in value. They are being subjected to a new charge. For that reason, the charge must be closely linked to the development plan. We need to explore that further as we go through the next amendments.

Baroness Andrews: The entire thrust of CIL is that it is explicitly linked to the development plan. It is an additional charge which is made locally for all the reasons that I have given. As I also said, government funding will continue to provide the majority of funding for infrastructure, which is very expensive.

The Earl of Caithness: Indeed it is. The Minister has given a full reply. Later today we will cover a great deal of what we have just said as there will inevitably be a run-through following this glorified Second Reading debate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 435B:
	Clause 198, page 122, line 38, leave out "(CIL)" and insert "for Local Investment (CILLI)"

The Earl of Caithness: The amendment seeks to leave out the word "(CIL)" and to insert "for Local Investment" so that it becomes the community infrastructure levy for local investment.
	It is apparent that while one needs to maintain a flexible approach for local infrastructure needs, protections are required to ensure that moneys collected through CIL do not fund infrastructure in parts of a council area that bear no relation to the general area in which the development occurs. One way of dealing with that is to require a nexus between the development being levied and where the infrastructure is provided. That would ensure that any infrastructure provided would be in proximity to the development occurring. That is essential if the benefits from the infrastructure are at least balanced against the costs of the levy.
	Having got to that stage, I then thought: "How else can I get this across to the Minister?". She then came riding to the rescue. In the second paragraph of her letter to us of 14 October, she says:
	"There is, I believe, a consensus that an instrument of this sort represents the future for developer contributions towards local infrastructure, building on the existing system of planning obligations. CIL aims to provide certainty and transparency for developers and communities alike".
	She goes into further details in her attachment to the letter. Referring to the charging authorities in Clause 199, she says:
	"This makes clear that CIL is a local levy for use by local authorities".
	My amendment is to help the Minister put into the Bill what she wants: a local levy for local investment. Amendment No. 435B would leave out "CIL" and insert, "for Local Investment (CILLI)". I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: I think we could do with some light relief after the previous amendment. I can be very brief. The amendment would change the name of CIL. It may be inspired by a desire to limit CIL spending to only local infrastructure needs. It may also be intended to make mischief, which the noble Earl is perfectly capable of.
	We have made it perfectly clear that CIL is a local measure, but it cannot be limited solely to providing local infrastructure for all the reasons I have given previously, where local authorities consider that they have more strategic infrastructure than is needed to support their growth. We made it clear at paragraphs 2.28 and 2.30 in our August policy statement, which I will not read, that sub-regional infrastructure supports the needs of more than one local authority. There are important examples: hospitals, larger transport projects and waste facilities. Sub-regional infrastructure is critical to the way our communities function. It is often the most critical type of infrastructure in terms of unlocking significant housing or economic development; I have lost track of the number of instances that I know of—I am sure my noble friend Lady Ford knows them too—where development is held up because local authorities cannot agree, an incredible amount of time is wasted while people argue over who is responsible for what and things just do not happen for years on end. We cannot afford that, and we should not rule it out in either name or substance. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl, but I cannot accept his amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: How disappointing. I thought I was going to be so helpful to the Minister and that she would accept my amendment with alacrity. However, I understand that there can be areas where it will be cross-boundary and that the idea of CIL is not just a local infrastructure in the way that some people would define "local", but local to a whole planning area.
	With regard to the Minister's letters to us, could they please be a little more personal? To receive a letter for "noble Lords with an interest in the Planning Bill" is rather like getting a letter from the Kremlin. If it could be addressed to a Peer with copies circulated to other Peers, it would be just a little more friendly.

Baroness Andrews: Certainly. I wrestled with the title of that letter; it was even worse before. I will ensure that the next letter is a personal one, copied to all.

The Earl of Caithness: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 435C to 435GA not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 435H:
	Clause 198, page 122, leave out line 44 and insert—
	"(3) The Table describes the provisions of this Part."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 435J not moved.]
	Clause 198, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 199 [Charging authorities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 435K to 436 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 436A:
	Clause 199, leave out Clause 199 and insert the following new Clause—
	"The charge
	(1) A charging authority may charge CIL in respect of development of land in its area.
	(2) A local planning authority is the charging authority for its area.
	(3) But—
	(a) the Mayor of London is a charging authority for Greater London (in addition to the local planning authorities),(b) the Broads Authority is the only charging authority for the Broads (within the meaning given by section 2(3) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 (c. 4)), and(c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly is the only charging authority for the Isles of Scilly.
	(4) CIL regulations may provide for any of the following to be the charging authority for an area, or in the case of Greater London one of the charging authorities, in place of the charging authority under subsection (2), (3)(b) or (c)—
	(a) a county council,(b) a county borough council,(c) a district council,(d) a metropolitan district council, and(e) a London borough council (within the meaning of TCPA 1990).
	(5) In this section, "local planning authority" has the meaning given by—
	(a) section 37 of PCPA 2004 in relation to England, and(b) section 78 of PCPA 2004 in relation to Wales."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 199, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 436B:
	After Clause 199, insert the following new Clause—
	"Joint committees
	(1) This section applies if a joint committee that includes a charging authority is established under section 29 of PCPA 2004.
	(2) CIL regulations may provide that the joint committee is to exercise specified functions, in respect of the area specified in the agreement under section 29(1) of PCPA 2004, on behalf of the charging authority.
	(3) The regulations may make provision corresponding to provisions relating to joint committees in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) in respect of the discharge of the specified functions."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	House resumed.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 1.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.16 to 1.30 pm.]

Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2008

Lord Bach: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has indicated that he intends to move an amendment to the Motion. I will address what I believe to be his concerns and, as he will not be surprised to hear, ask him to withdraw his amendment at the end of the debate.
	The Act received Royal Assent in July 2007. Part 1, to which the three orders relate, creates a new two-tier tribunal structure—the first-tier tribunal and upper tribunal. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Bridget Prentice, noted in moving this order in the other place, the Bill had an excellent passage through both this House and the other place after being announced in November 2006 as part of the Queen's Speech. This is testament to what the Act will achieve as well as to the stewardship of my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland who guided it through its proceedings here, and my honourable and learned friend, now the Solicitor-General, who steered it through the other place when she was at the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	The Act is the culmination of many years of hard work to reform this country's tribunals system set in motion by Sir Andrew Leggatt in his review Tribunals for Users. Sir Andrew told us that we needed to create a single tribunals system. He told us these tribunals had to be completely separate from the government departments that made the decisions being appealed against, and that they should all be overseen by a separate distinct judiciary and administration.
	The Government established a unified administration for tribunals with the creation of the Tribunals Service in April 2006. The Act took tribunal reform much further and addressed the disorganisation of tribunals by creating a cohesive statutory framework with a unified tribunal judicial system. It is a system, however, within which the specialisms of individual tribunal jurisdictions will be supported and, indeed, enhanced.
	The first-tier tribunal and upper tribunal will bring together existing Ministry of Justice tribunals and tribunals in other government departments. They will be led by the Senior President, Lord Justice Carnwath, who was appointed under the Act in October last year. The first-tier tribunal will be the first instance tribunal for most jurisdictions; appeals from the original decision-making body will usually commence in this tier. The upper tribunal will deal with appeals from the first-tier tribunal and from some tribunals outside the unified system. It will also have the power to deal with judicial review work delegated from the High Court, and a few specialist cases will commence in the upper tribunal.
	Onward appeal from the first-tier will lie to the upper tribunal only with permission and on a point of law. The onward appeal from the upper tribunal to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session will also be only with permission and on a point of law.
	The main base of the upper tribunal will be located in central London; however, it will have the ability to hear cases throughout the UK.
	Both the first-tier and upper tribunals will be split into chambers grouping together similar jurisdictions, as set out in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Chambers) Order, a statutory instrument subject to negative resolution procedures and laid on 15 October 2008. The chambers order divides the first-tier tribunal into three chambers—the social entitlement chamber, the health, education and social care chamber and the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber. The upper tribunal will initially have only one chamber—the administrative appeals chamber. These chambers will be able to maintain and expand expertise and incorporate new jurisdictions where they fit best.
	Judges and members can be invited to sit in another jurisdiction, but only if the individual satisfies the eligibility criteria, has undertaken any necessary training and there is a business need. It is essential for providing a good service that specialist expertise is protected and improved.
	Each chamber under the Act is required to have a chamber president, whose role is the maintenance and improvement of the chamber's expertise. They will usually be selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Their aim will be to ensure that the proper degree of judicial expertise is brought to bear on cases. They will also be judges of the upper tribunal. In addition to this, each jurisdiction will have a principal judge. These will be the current leads in the jurisdiction and will provide continuity in judicial leadership in the new system.
	The Act also creates a Tribunal Procedure Committee that will bring greater consistency and simplicity to tribunal procedure rules. Committee members have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord President and the Senior President of Tribunals. The membership of the committee includes a representative of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, whom I am delighted to see in his place. The AJTC was created under the Act to replace the Council on Tribunals and has, through its seat on the committee, a central role in the rule-making process for tribunals. The Tribunal Procedure Committee has made rules for each of the chambers of the first-tier and the upper tribunal. The rules were laid on 15 October 2008.
	The new system will have greater flexibility in absorbing new work or responding to fluctuations. It allows the introduction of a more coherent appellate system from tribunals, and clarification of the relationship of tribunals to the principles set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It will also create more adaptable boundaries between courts and tribunals by allowing the courts to transfer certain types of case to tribunals and reducing the need for judicial review hearings in the High Court.
	We conducted a 12-week public consultation on the proposals, which ran from November 2007 to February 2008. The response was published in May, and copies were laid in the Library of the House. While the proposals were, on the whole, very well supported, serious concerns were expressed by members of the Armed Forces community about the possible impact on the service which the Pensions Appeal Tribunals provides for them as a result of implementing the Act. In particular, they were concerned about the proposed transfer of the PAT England and Wales jurisdiction into the social entitlement chamber.
	In recognition of these concerns, I would like to advise the House that following further consultation on the chambers' structure, in recognition of concerns expressed by members of the Armed Forces community and the special relationship between service personnel and the Government, the decision has been made to create a separate War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber. I pay tribute to, among others, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, whose very effective submissions got us to change our mind.
	The Government's decision has been made with the full involvement of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-service Organisations—COBSEO—and other key organisations. This will ensure that service personnel can benefit from the advantages of being within the new tribunal structure while ensuring that the unique nature of the jurisdiction is not compromised or diluted. The chamber will have its own rules and procedures, and the present role of service members on hearing panels will be maintained without diminution or alteration. The negative statutory instruments laid on 15 October reflect and buttress the unique nature of the Armed Forces jurisdiction within the unified tribunal structure.
	In addition, the Lord Chancellor and the Senior President of Tribunals have made a joint statement explaining the basis on which the work of PAT England and Wales will transfer into the new tribunal system. The joint statement was included in Written Ministerial Statements made by the Lord Chancellor and myself on 16 October 2008. If noble Lords have not had the opportunity of reading that Written Ministerial Statement, I invite them to do so. It is a very comprehensive Statement, which includes passages that were helpfully suggested to the authors by the noble Lords to whom I have referred.
	Ex-service and service organisations and the noble Lords to whom I referred have worked tirelessly with the Government to reach the best possible outcome for the ex-service and service men and women who are the users of the PAT and should always remain the focus of any proposals that will impact on the jurisdiction. The Government are committed to ongoing transformation of our tribunals, placing the user at the very heart of the service. The orders that I ask the House to approve today are very significant steps towards achieving this. The Government have decided on a phased introduction of the new tribunals system, starting in November. This is to avoid disruption to service delivery. None the less, we aim to implement the new system as soon as is practicable.
	The Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order effects the transfer of various existing tribunals listed in Schedule 1 of the order to the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal established under Section 3 of the Act. The order has various primary functions, and in addition contains various minor, consequential and transitional provisions in respect of the transfers.
	On the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008, Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to make provision, by virtue of this order, for the number of members on a tribunal panel and whether these members should be judges or non-legal members. It further enables these duties of the Lord Chancellor to be carried out by the Senior President of Tribunals, which this order will do.
	For the first-tier tribunal, the order requires the senior president to determine the number of members of a tribunal. In doing so, he is required to have regard to the practice that existed in the tribunal before it was transferred into the first-tier tribunal. The order sets out the qualifications or experience that a person must have to be eligible for appointment as a member of the first-tier tribunal or upper tribunal who is not a judge of the tribunal. It generally reflects the intentions set out in the Government's consultation paper by retaining existing qualifications required for non-legal members of transferring tribunals with some additional flexibility introduced to reflect widening areas of expertise suitable in some jurisdictions.
	I have spoken of the concerns that were expressed by members of the service and ex-service community in respect of the transfer of PAT into the new tribunal, and the steps we have taken to address these concerns. One concern was that the role of the service member should be preserved for the Armed Forces jurisdiction. While the composition order does not explicitly do this, other measures have been taken to ensure that appeal panels must include those who understand the particular nature of service in the Armed Forces. The Senior President of Tribunals has produced a draft practice statement on composition of tribunals which requires the continued use of service members on hearing panels within the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber. The president and deputy-president of the PAT have been consulted on the draft and are in agreement with it. The qualifications order requires that service members have substantial experience of service in Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces. These measures will ensure that the present role of service members in the Armed Forces jurisdiction is maintained without diminution or alteration.
	The Government believe that any further application for permission or leave should satisfy at least one of the requirements without exception. This restriction is necessary as appellants will already have had two appeals and two opportunities for their case to be heard. I am dealing with some of the more detailed elements of the order relating to appeals from the upper tribunal to the Court of Appeal. I do not think that I need to go into details on those orders, but of course I am in a position to do so if I receive comments and questions about them.
	I know that this has been a vexed matter over a number of months and the Government are grateful to those who have taken such an active interest in ensuring that we have got it right; I think that we have now. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved. 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)

Lord Craig of Radley: rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from "that" to the end and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 4 June because it abolishes the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales".

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the wording of my Motion, which I tabled before the Summer Recess, makes clear that my worry at that time was about the future of the vital work of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales. I have no issues to raise on other tribunals affected by the orders that we are debating.
	At the end of last year, I was alerted to concerns about the Government's intentions for the future of PAT in England and Wales. I tabled a Written Question then, but the Government seemed determined to transfer the work of PAT in England and Wales into a social entitlement chamber of the new first-year tribunal, even though that was strongly rejected by all PAT members, judicial, military and medical—the experts—and by a number of the service charities that support individuals' appeals against their war pension or injury compensation awards. The House will appreciate that all too often appellants are young service personnel who, while fighting for their country, have received most grievous physical and mental injuries, which they will have to bear and cope with all their adult lives.
	We, the nation, owe such individuals, their families and dependants an absolute duty of fair treatment. This PAT has provided since 1919 as a highly regarded and trusted statutory independent body. Fair treatment for the Armed Forces, their families and veterans has recently been underwritten by the Command Paper entitled The Nation's Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans. I quote just one sentence form the foreword by the Prime Minister, who said:
	"I am determined to ensure that they are fairly treated".
	Perhaps the House will share the concerns and indeed outrage of many much more closely involved with this topic than me that merging Armed Forces' appellants with asylum support, social security and child support appeals tribunals' work would be to treat injuries sustained in battle as if they were the same as any other "social entitlement".
	Even following meetings last June with Bridget Prentice, the Ministry of Justice Minister in charge of this issue and the Senior President of Tribunals, Lord Justice Carnwath, the Government remained obdurate. An article for inclusion in service charities' news letters about the transfer of PAT functions to the social entitlement chamber was widely distributed from the office of the Senior President of Tribunals, although at that time the orders had not been approved by either House. With the help of the noble Baroness who is now Leader of the House, the Ministry of Justice was persuaded to hold further discussions with the service charities, which continued through August. In early December, Bridget Prentice agreed with the concurrence of senior president to set up a separate War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber, to which the Minister has referred, in the first-tier tribunal, although she insisted on placing on record that it would be better for the functions of the PAT England and Wales to go to the social entitlement chamber.
	Given that ambivalent attitude, and the fact that the PATs in Scotland and Northern Ireland were to continue unchanged, noble Lords may agree that it was and still is important to seek assurances from the Government about future arrangements for PAT England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor and the Senior President of Tribunals last week made a Written Ministerial Statement, published in the Official Report on 16 October—the Statement to which the Minister referred—which deals not only with the various details of the Armed Forces chamber, including rules and membership, but clearly explains to the many who were dubious about the intention to abolish a major part of PAT why the Armed Forces chamber would be as good, perhaps better, for the users—that is, the appellants and their supporters.
	I hope to hear from other noble Lords whether they agree that the Government have now done what is necessary to reassure appellants, their supporters and the public at large that the Government are honouring their commitment to treat fairly those in the Armed Forces who have been harmed physically or mentally in discharging their duties.
	I have one query for the Minister, of which I have given him notice. Bearing in mind the ambivalence to which I have referred, will he assure the House that the Lord Chancellor and the Senior President of Tribunals have no intention at some future date to abolish the new War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber and transfer its work to another existing chamber in the first-tier tribunal, and that if this were ever contemplated, parliamentary approval, ideally by means of affirmative order, would be required? The statutory independence of PAT (England and Wales) goes once it is abolished. It should be on the record that the new Armed Forces chamber still enjoys statutory protection and that parliamentary authority would have to be obtained before it could be abolished. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from "that" to the end and insert "this House declines to approve the draft order laid before the House on 4 June because it abolishes the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales".—(Lord Craig of Radley.)

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, for reasons that many noble Lords will readily understand, I am delighted to be following my good friend the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The constancy of his commitment to war pensioners is for me reminiscent of a speech by the Duke of Marlborough after Blenheim. Addressing this House on his return from that great victory, he said that much the best way to celebrate it was not to heap praise on him, but to act justly to the men who had fought so bravely with him. It is from that proud tradition that the noble and gallant Lord's motivation derives. With integrity, intellect and stamina to spare, he has been centrally involved in the issue that we are now met to debate all the way from the grid to this final lap.
	I have interests to declare—none of them pecuniary—as the honorary parliamentary adviser nationally to the Royal British Legion since 1988, as a governor of St Dunstan's, as national vice-president of the War Widows' Association, as the architect and promoter in 1970 of legislation to strengthen the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; and as the Minister for War Pensions from 1974 to 1979.
	This is a rare parliamentary moment, one of proof positive that parliamentary scrutiny is still alive and well in the Palace of Westminster. The noble Lords who worked to bring it about, not least during the Summer Recess, were from all parts of the House but of one mind and a shared determination to avert a wholly unnecessary confrontation with men and women who, alone in this country, contract with the state to make the ultimate sacrifice in its service, and the bereaved families of those who do so.
	We were not a cabal, simply a coming-together of concerned parliamentarians as realisation spread that what was contemplated in implementing the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was nothing less than the destruction not just of the PAT but of any prospect of a stand-alone, specialised and independent successor to its work. That was made plain in the PAT's admirably clear response to the Ministry of Justice's consultation document, Transforming Tribunals. The PAT's response set out with clarity and in detail how the document's bland assertion that the purpose of the reforms was to give a better service to its users contrasted with the reality that Armed Forces appellants would be subjected to a marked worsening of the service currently available. The PAT's response drew attention also to the reality that appellants would in future be dealt with by a tribunal structure in England and Wales very different from those in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	That response, despite the standing and unrivalled experience of its authors, was summarily set aside as the pace of the drive to give legislative effect to the department's proposals quickened, even to the point of corner-cutting in consulting the ex-service community. Indeed, Sir Roger Carnwath, writing as senior president of tribunals, sent me on 20 June what noble Lords later referred to as his,
	"all done and dusted letter",
	which stated that agreement had been reached following a meeting of veterans' organisations that he had hosted earlier that day and that he would send me copies of a "straightforward explanation" of what had been agreed—already being prepared by his office—for inclusion in their newsletters and websites.
	Moreover, Sir Roger's letter said that it was in,
	"an e-mail from The Royal British Legion",
	following the meeting, that the veterans' organisations had confirmed later that day that they were,
	"now content with the new tribunal arrangements".
	The sequel to that letter was sharp and strong. It came in a letter sent to Sir Roger by Christopher Simpkins, the legion's director-general, within days of his having seen the letter from the senior president of tribunals to me of 20 June. The director-general's response made it clear that he was disturbed to see the views,
	"attributed to The Royal British Legion since they do not reflect our position".
	The legion had made it "consistently clear" that it wished to retain the PAT, and the director-general concluded:
	"Our fundamental position, for the avoidance of any doubt, is that we do not support the demise of the PAT which has served our beneficiaries so well".
	Chris Simpkins, like Air Vice-Marshal Tony Stables of COBSEO, became a major contributor to the outcome of all the extra-parliamentary effort involved in helping to achieve a just outcome in this House. Their input was exemplary throughout. High tribute is due also to Dr Harcourt Concannon and his admirable team—some would say fellowship—at the PAT. They deserve well of this House.
	That we have come so far since the threatened breakdown in June is much to the credit also of my noble friend Lady Royall, who has won the respect and admiration of the ex-service community. She knows how important, too, has been the help of, among others, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Henley; and they in turn know how helpful have been the noble Baronesses, Lady D' Souza and Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
	For parliamentarians, there is surely no more compelling duty than to vouchsafe the well-being of the war disabled and bereaved, and it is much to the honour of your Lordships' House that parliamentary scrutiny has so demonstrably triumphed here in discharging that duty to them. They are very special people.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have one short question for the Minister. Many years ago I served from time to time as a medical member of medical appeal tribunals on appeals against decisions of the Ministry of National Insurance relating to injury in the course of employment. Also from time to time I served as a medical member of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, which dealt not only with compensation for injuries suffered in service, but also dealt specifically with disease or illness either beginning in or attributed to service. The title of the new Armed Forces compensation chamber suggests that it is likely to be dealing with compensation. Will the Minister clarify whether pension appeals regarding disease or illness beginning during service or attributed to service will be in the authority of the new Armed Forces compensation chamber?

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, in intervening in this short debate I declare the interest already implied by the Minister; namely, that I am chair of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, which, in its former guise as the Council on Tribunals, was involved with the oversight of tribunals for some 50 years.
	The Minister has also referred—and I thank him for that—to the fact that in my capacity as chair of that council I am a member of the Tribunal Procedure Committee. In that context, I wish to pay tribute to the huge amount of work put into the procedure committee by one of our members, Bronwyn McKenna.
	The Minister has explained the orders, and I have neither the wish nor the intention to ask him a lot of technical questions, difficult or otherwise. My purpose is simply to express the hope that the House will support these orders that enable a further significant step to be taken in the modernisation and reform of the tribunal system, which is due to be taken on 3 November. It will not escape the attention of the House that 3 November is barely 10 days from today, so it might be thought that Ministers have been operating a bit close to the wire. Indeed, they have. The reasons for that have become clear in the speeches already made in the debate.
	I do not want to enter into further argument on the matters that have been raised by the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and which are in the minds of others, I simply wish to say that it is a matter of considerable relief to me and to many others that in recent times there has been a spirit of seeking agreement, which appears now to have been achieved. That provides a way forward, and, as a result, we have avoided actually hitting the wire and not being able to proceed on 3 November.
	My contribution is concerned with the broader merits of the programme of change that this is part of. If anyone doubts the worthwhile nature of that overall, I commend paragraph 7, headed "Policy background", of the explanatory notes circulated with the orders. I shall not quote, repeat or elaborate on it, but it brings out the extent to which tribunals—not only in disputes between the citizen and the state but also in some other important field such as employment rights—are a major part of our justice system which have long been under recognised and given insufficient attention. Over many years they grew piecemeal and they often remained administered by the departments whose decisions were being appealed against. That is something that troubled me well over 25 years ago now when I was a social security Minister. That is now being addressed as a result of Sir Andrew Leggatt's report, together with the fact that too many tribunals were answerable to the departments that took the decision in the first place and the absence of a proper structure and career path, whether for judiciary or staff. So the provision is very welcome and worth while.
	The Minister started with Sir Andrew Leggatt and his report. In a sense, this goes one step back to a previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who recognised the problem and the need and asked Andrew Leggatt to prepare his report. It is to the credit of three successive Lords Chancellor—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Falconer, and now Jack Straw—and a number of junior Ministers, not least the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, that this work has been carried steadily forward over six years to bring us to where we are now, with a further step being taken in a significant improvement to our justice system. Many people have worked very hard to get us to this stage, not least Lord Justice Carnwath, the Senior President of Tribunals. I simply say that it is pleasing to see those efforts rewarded by what I hope will be the further step agreed by the House today.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with and support all that my noble friend Lord Newton has just said about the overall changes being made today. I want to take a brief opportunity to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and all the others involved both inside and outside your Lordships' House on the important success in persuading the Government to change their mind in the past few weeks on the particular aspect of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. It would have been a grave error simply to abolish the tribunal and put all such appeals into the general social tribunal. The Armed Forces deserve special treatment in this matter. They are under great pressure at present. I declare an interest of a sort in that my son-in-law, a TA soldier, is currently in Afghanistan where he and his colleagues are required to boost the numbers of the Regular Army for their operations.
	The Minister's reference to "flexibility" of the new system might worry some people reading these proceedings. The new war pensions and Armed Forces compensation chamber of the first-tier tribunal will be watched with care to ensure that it is set up and continues to run as the Minister has helpfully explained today. I suspect that he may say to the noble and gallant Lord, in answer to his question, that any change under current legislation will be subject to negative rather than affirmative procedure. That matter is not in the Minister's gift, but he will no doubt explain that.
	I would not want anyone, whether Minister, civil servant or lawyer, to think that after an interval this might somehow slip quietly into some sort of amalgamation with the other chapters or blur the edges. It would be an error to suppose that.
	Sense has prevailed. I add my thanks to those already made to the Ministers who saw the light early, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who achieved the right result. The main credit and thanks should go to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and, overall, it is a victory for the House of Lords.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, on the whole, these Benches were fairly supportive of the Bill during its passage, expressing, where we felt necessary, our strong feelings and, indeed, objections, with regard to some of the detail, and, more particularly, how that detail would translate into daily usage and its effect on the applicants in question or, as the Government like to refer to them, the stakeholders. It is in that context that I return without apology to the Government's decision to abolish the PAT, which we felt was taking streamlining much too far, and the results of which would be seriously deleterious to the military stakeholders at a time when their support within our society is most needed and should be demonstrably visible.
	Like others, I thank the Minister, his predecessors and his whole team both here and in the other place—and, of course, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Cope, and others—for their hard work in giving effect to legislation which was needed to some extent, while protecting the very people it was meant to serve. Directing all of the former Pensions Appeal Tribunal's work into a specific chamber of the first-tier tribunal, which we seek to put into effect today, will provide a compromise—perhaps one that we would have preferred not to have to even contemplate, but one that all involved parties wish to seek work as constructively as possible.
	I wholeheartedly support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in the questions that he asks when he expresses his concern as to the future of the newly proposed stand-alone chamber. How can its survival be assured against a backdrop of further reorganisations, future financial constraints, numbers of applications and so on? The list is as long as any scenario one might anticipate, especially in the case of any future change of Administration. It is clear that Parliament should have the final say, especially where abolition or restriction of such a chamber's activities might be concerned. Equally, the current statutory protection enjoyed by the PATs must be expressed somewhere in clear-cut terms with respect to the WPAFC chamber; the initialisms get even longer.
	I shall refer briefly, however, to the Minister's statement on the proposed steering committee tasked with ensuring cohesion of jurisdiction between the different PATs and the new chamber. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that the steering group will continue to coexist with the new chamber; and that the independent chair should have some military and legal knowledge. Who will the steering group actually report to? Will it be in writing? Will Parliament be informed of its work and adhesion to its recommendations? Finally, on the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008, which we are considering today, the president must be fully aware and must be guided by the content of the Minister's statement when addressing issues pertinent to the new War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can be brief; most of what needs to be said has been said. I thank the Minister for coming to this House, making the concession that we all sought and explaining it in some detail—he took some 14 minutes, on the longer side of speeches for such orders. However, we were all grateful for that because, first, they deserve a good explanation and, secondly, we were grateful for the degree of contrition that the Minister showed on the Government's behalf for having got things right and, then, having listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and all the others mentioned, coming to some sort of compromise.
	We are debating the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I shall concentrate on that and the PATs because the rest of the order is not so controversial. In that spirit, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I declare that I, too, served as a war pensions Minister from 1989 to 1993, under the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my noble friend Lord Newton. I therefore know a little about the PATs and how they worked.
	My first point is about the lack of consultation, and what I suspect is a lack of consultation within government. We all know that there was consultation, but the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has described how that consultation was possibly ignored. It took the later rows of this summer to sort things out. Back in my day as the war pensions Minister, when it was situated in the Department of Social Security—I imagine the same was true when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was there—a body known as the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions met under the chairmanship of the Minister at least twice a year and gave him advice in fairly robust terms on their concerns about the current issues within war pensions. The Minister would listen to all of those and, feeling rather bruised, would probably take them off to the Secretary of State to see how these matters could be sorted out. He knew that he would be back in front of that committee six months later and would have to report on how these matters were going.
	I ask the Minister what has happened to the central advisory committee. Has it been moved to the Ministry of Defence with the new Veterans' Affairs Minister? If it has just been wound up, that is rather a retrograde step; I hope that that is not the case. However, if it has been moved, was it consulted on these matters? What did it have to say about that? I take it that the Veterans' Affairs Minister was consulted, because his response is referred to. What was it asked and what did it say? I hope that the Minister will let us know about that in due course.
	Secondly, I underline and repeat the principal question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. What assurances can the Government give us that there will be no further changes to the new chamber that will cover war pensions, without the approval—preferably affirmative—of both Houses of Parliament? In answering that, will the Minister turn also to how pensions appeal tribunals have worked in the past, and tell us a little about burden of proof and standard of proof. The Minister will remember, possibly far better than I, that in the criminal court guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Within the civil courts, guilt is found on a balance of probabilities. The Minister will remember that war pensions operate on a completely different and lower burden of proof. They just have to show that there is a reasonable doubt that a particular problem was caused by service; as I understand it, that has been the cases since 1919. Can the Government assure us further that that will be preserved, and that we will not see a change to the whole question of burden and standard of proof as applied to war pensions as a result of them moving in to this new set-up, even with the assurances we have been given?
	Thirdly, there is different treatment between Scotland, and then England and Wales. As the Minister will know, we see the different bodies being transferred to the first-tier appeal tribunal in Schedule 1. Some I have experience of, such as the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, originally set up by the Disability Discrimination Act and the Education Act 1996. On education, Scotland and England can go their separate ways to some extent, because education is a devolved matter. War pensions certainly are not. There is a possibility that in Scottish courts decisions on appeals from the old PATs will vary from appeal decisions in the English courts from the various tribunals here. It does not matter for education because it is a devolved matter, and 100 flowers can blossom—whatever the expression.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord corrects me. However, that cannot apply to war pensions, where we obviously need a unified structure covering the whole country.
	I hope that the noble Lord can deal with those questions. I thank him for his efforts—he was not involved initially and therefore was not responsible for achieving consensus on the matter—as this is a difficult matter and he and his department were put under great pressure. I hope that the new Ministry of Justice will learn that it is better to consult deeply and to listen to what consultees have to say, particularly when many of them have so much experience in these matters.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for where we are today. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, for describing in slightly broader terms what these reforms are about in a wider context. I pay tribute to him for the enormous amount of work he still does, with his expertise gained from many years' experience in this important field. I have already congratulated those noble Lords, many of whom are present and some of whom spoke, who put pressure on the Government to reach a more satisfactory conclusion.
	I wish to speak briefly. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, gave me notice that he would ask whether the Government intended at some future date to abolish the new War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber. I hope he will not be surprised to hear me say that there is no intention to do that. Moreover, it could not be transferred to any other existing or future chamber without a statutory instrument being laid. However, as other noble Lords pointed out, under the 2007 Act, the negative procedure would apply to such a statutory instrument.
	The noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked a relevant question about what would be covered by the new chamber. I am delighted to tell him that the entire jurisdiction of the existing PAT will transfer to the new chamber of the first-tier tribunal, including the matters which he raised. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, I have information on the advisory steering group, but I think it would be helpful to him and to the House if I wrote him a letter to deal in a little more detail with the questions he asked. I shall send a copy of it to all those who spoke in the debate and place a copy in the Library. I shall do the same as regards the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. As I understand it, the central advisory committee is placed at the Ministry of Justice. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will want a little more information than that.
	My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester referred in his excellent speech to COBSEO. On 14 October that organisation wrote to my honourable friend Bridget Prentice and advised her that it was pleased to endorse the proposal to transfer the PAT (England and Wales) into the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber of the first-tier tribunal. I am convinced that it would not have been so persuaded had it not been for the compromise proposed by the Government and the pressure put on the Government by noble Lords.
	We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, that not many days are left before the new system is due to come into place. Like him, I hope that the House will pass these draft orders and wish them good speed. The War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber will have the job of doing justice to members of our Armed Forces who have sacrificed so much for the rest of us. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement that has been mentioned. It states:
	"To reflect the special nature of a jurisdiction serving those who alone in this country contract with the state to lay down their lives in its service and in recognition of the special relationship between service personnel and the Government as characterised by Command Paper ... it has been decided to establish a war pensions and Armed Forces compensation chamber".—[Official Report, 16/10/08; col. WS49.]
	That in itself pays tribute to our Armed Forces. I was privileged to be a Defence Minister for almost four years, so I am absolutely delighted to stand at this Dispatch Box satisfied that the new arrangements are acceptable to the House, as I hope they will be.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered response. I also thank all noble Lords who supported this very important new arrangement for pensions appeals. I am, of course, grateful for the many kind remarks that noble Lords made about me and my efforts. I am grateful to all those who have worked tirelessly on this issue, not only Members of this House and service charities but those in the Ministry of Justice. A good deal of midnight oil has no doubt been burnt, but a satisfactory arrangement has been reached, which will be kept under review by the steering group to be set up in the next few months. There are too many to thank to mention everybody, but the leadership and guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and the understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, both as Government Chief Whip and more recently as the Leader of your Lordships' House, were without parallel. The considerable efforts of COBSEO and its family of service charities have made a major contribution. If there is one lesson to pass on to the Ministry of Justice and the Government it is that when service charities enjoy the support of noble Lords for their efforts, it is a gross error of judgment to think that they can be dealt with serially. We work together to achieve the best result possible for the people we are supporting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved. 21st report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal Order 2008

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved. 21st report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bach.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 2.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 2.28 to 2.30 pm.]

Planning Bill

House again in Committee.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 436BA:
	After Clause 199, insert the following new Clause—
	"Duty to co-operate with charging authority
	Partner authorities (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28)) must co-operate with charging authorities in the preparation of the community infrastructure levy."

Baroness Hamwee: This is another long group. At this stage, I shall speak only to my amendment and ask the Minister a question on one of her amendments. Perhaps she will be able to cover it when she speaks to her amendments.
	Amendment No. 436BA was discussed with me by the Local Government Association. It would introduce a new clause on a duty to co-operate with the charging authority. It refers to "partner authorities". "Partner" has an even higher status than a buzzword in local government these days. Almost everything is done through partnership. In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, of which many of us have memories, if not necessarily fond ones, there are many provisions about partnerships.
	The purpose of the new clause would be to ensure that local public bodies co-operate with the charging authorities in order that the charging authorities have full information from which to determine the level and types of infrastructure required in their area. Charging authorities will need access to service-related information held by a variety of agencies if they are fully to understand the infrastructure requirements of local communities. The provision of information relating to long and medium-term service goals, requirements, targets, capacity and so on, will be fundamental to underpinning the charging authorities' setting of the CIL.
	I shall refer quickly to government Amendment No. 438M. I am afraid that I am going back to London on this. There is a provision here about the Mayor of London having personally to approve the charge. The Government have tabled Amendment No. 444C, which restricts delegation on the part of the mayor under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but it does not take out every provision for delegation. Are the two government amendments consistent with one another?
	More broadly on Amendment No. 438M, I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the examination of the charging schedule will be a tick-box exercise or something more substantive. I hope that when the Minister introduces Amendment No. 438M, she will explain how the process is anticipated to work. I am unclear from the proposed new clause whether the examiner is simply required to ensure that the process has been complied with, or what the powers will be. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I have four amendments in this group. Amendment No. 436BB is designed so that everyone will know exactly what is happening and so that there is a bit of transparency. Anyone purchasing land for potential development or considering planning permission should be able to know how authorities might charge a levy on that land, so that they can ascertain potential liabilities and costs beforehand. That is particularly important given that the legislation will involve a number of authorities, although it now appears that there will be only one charging authority. The aim of the amendment is to have transparency for all those involved in the process.
	Amendment No. 438CC addresses the situation whereby some authorities will have greater capacity to implement the CIL regime than others. There is a need to encourage and reward local authorities that have the best practice in infrastructure delivery. Support and guidance are required for those that may need to improve their performance.
	My third amendment is Amendment No. 438H. A simple fixed-rate tariff based on different classes of development seems to be a sensible way forward if we are going to have this ghastly levy. It is important that other factors should be considered when calculating the CIL, including such things as any increase in density, any impact on infrastructure demand from the development and existing infrastructure needs of a given local area. What discussion is taking place around the issue of levy collection in local authority areas that are rich in infrastructure? How will infrastructure be provided in those areas that are poor in infrastructure but which have low levels of development generally to support the existing deficits? I want to ensure that levies are not set so high as to prevent development occurring. Where they are set at such a level, the charging authority should compensate the owner or developer if the cost of the charge prevents the development going ahead. I cover that situation in Amendment No. 444B.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: There are some quite serious issues in this group of amendments. I refer to government Amendment No. 438C, which refers to what the charging authority must have regard to, and to government Amendment No. 438J, which allows it to charge a nil rate. I refer also to Amendment No. 438H, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, considering the economic impacts of the levy.
	Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that the timing of the levy was not very good. In a private conversation that he and I had yesterday—I apologise for divulging a private conversation, but it seems to be the trend these days—we agreed that developers, entrepreneurs, businesses and the construction industry needed this levy right now like a hole in the head. I would go further than that. My area of interest is rural areas. Some rural areas are desperately in need of regeneration and development, and they will need this levy like a bullet through the head.
	Some remote or deprived areas do all that they can to relieve costs for new businesses and to channel government or European funding to aid development, facilitate infrastructure developments and even facilitate planning to attract new businesses and development. Even without CIL, those areas often fail to attract the businesses that they desperately need. There is perhaps a lack of trained staff; in some areas, there might be a lack of fast broadband or easy transport communication; there is probably insufficient housing for workers; or there are perhaps better places to go for businesses. All this happens even without the advent of CIL.
	The government paper on the levy, published in August, provided an analysis of how CIL might work in Swindon. I am sure that it would work very well there and provide much needed public funding for infrastructure; but what about some of the more deprived and remote areas, such as the south-west, including west Cornwall, west Somerset, north Devon or Torbay, or even other areas of the country, such as Wales, west Cumbria, east Lincolnshire or north Cambridgeshire? The list goes on. I expect that many of those areas will try to remain competitive by setting a nil rate. My anxiety is: what happens then? What do the partner bodies do with their demands for funds from CIL for their infrastructure? Do they say, "In that case, we will spend our capital on infrastructure projects elsewhere?", thus, presumably, condemning the deprived area to further, continuous and eternal deprivation?
	Another question mentioned earlier is: what will the Treasury do when the CIL receipts flow into the coffers of the high-charging authorities? Will it say, "We will no longer fund infrastructure costs of this nature through the rate support grant or other agency funding"? The Treasury cannot do that for one authority and not another; presumably the remote and deprived authorities then take a further step backwards. It would seem that deprived areas will have to choose between having no development or no infrastructure—or maybe neither.
	I do not wish to put the Minister on the spot, but I would be very grateful if she could help me with my largely, but probably not exclusively, rural worries.

Baroness Valentine: I wish to touch on some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Cameron. I turn to my four amendments in this group, which are in two pairs—Amendments Nos. 438EA and 438HA and Amendments Nos. 438CA and 438CB—because they tackle two specific points on how CIL should be set.
	My previous amendments related to the purpose of CIL. These amendments concern how local authorities go about establishing CIL. I will briefly touch on some of my previous comments, because they also apply here. I am extremely grateful for the Minister's indication that we can continue to discuss some of these issues.
	My overall point is that CIL should be set at the right level to fund infrastructure and at a level appropriate to the prevailing economic conditions. CIL should take account of overall development viability in an area and not be linked to any increase in land value arising from the grant of planning permission. Amendment No. 438EA seeks that local authorities should take account of development viability when setting the CIL by ensuring it is not set at a level that would stop land being brought forward for development. If CIL is set too high, landowners will not make their land available. Therefore, the test for the appropriate level of CIL should be that it will still allow the land needed for development plan priorities to come forward.
	Amendment No. 438HA removes the reference to land value increase in relation to local authority CIL charging schedules. I have already argued that taxing increases in land value should not form part of the purpose of CIL, nor be a consideration for local authorities when setting CIL. If land value is used as a reference point, it will inevitably become the basis upon which CIL is allocated between different land uses, rather than the demands each use places on infrastructure—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has made. This will mean that uses, such as retail, which generate the highest land value increases, will bear a disproportionate burden, irrespective of their impact on the infrastructure. As I understand it, that is not the purpose of CIL. Amendments Nos. 438EA and 438HA set out to change the mechanism for assessing CIL—the viability of development and its impact on infrastructure. The amendments also seek to change the language to that used in the planning system, rather than the tax system.
	My second pair of amendments, Amendments Nos. 438CA and 438CB, propose that the setting and charging of CIL should be done through the development plan process. It is simply common sense that if CIL is to work efficiently and effectively, the development plan, the cornerstone of the planning system, must be used as the structure through which it is formulated, tested, and charged. Without these amendments the unintended consequence of the current drafting is that development which is acceptable in planning terms could be refused planning permission if it is unable viably to meet the full cost of CIL. It is only through incorporating CIL in the development plan process that there is any hope of the levy being independently and robustly tested, and applied in a reasonable way to planning decisions.
	At present, the clauses make no reference to the planning process by which the CIL should be determined. The Government's August 2008 publication on CIL suggests that the charging schedule will be part of the local development framework. Crucially, the report suggests that the charging schedule will not obtain the status of a development plan document. If this is the case, there will be a number of negative consequences for the robustness of the CIL system. If, on the other hand, the CIL charging schedule were to be a development plan document, the resulting CIL policies would have the full weight of the statutory planning system behind them. This would allow the local authority to take full account of the viability of a development when deciding whether to grant planning permission and, in exceptional cases, to vary the CIL to ensure viability.
	In particular, for instance, there are brownfield, mixed-use regeneration schemes, like King's Cross, where the development, while desirable and meeting many planning objectives, may be unable to bear the full cost of CIL without becoming unviable. In these exceptional cases, it is vital that the local authority has discretion to reduce the CIL charge and that this is done within the existing structures of the development plan. In such a case, were the local authority not to grant planning permission on the grounds that the development was unable to pay the full CIL, the applicant could appeal to the planning inspectorate against refusal, and there would be a proper process for resolving the issue and evaluating the proposed development.
	We must not allow for the formulation of unnecessary bureaucracy to deal with these exceptional cases when a perfectly adequate and well respected system exists already—the development plan.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The one thing on which a large number of people are agreed regarding this part of the Bill is that it is a good deal better than the planning gain supplement; but that is about the only thing on which people agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on this occasion and on Second Reading, made much of all the bodies that have said that CIL is the right way forward. I find that difficult to understand, because some important bodies have severe reservations about CIL and those reservations are being exposed. The speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, indicated several of the issues which need to be resolved. Some of the opposition goes to the heart of the matter.
	The original complaints about this skeleton Bill were wholly justified, which is why I originally proposed to leave out all the important clauses in this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, then tabled, rather belatedly, a string of 25 amendments that attempted to put some flesh on the bones. That led me to withdraw the notices that I had given about the clauses. At one point during Second Reading there was some suggestion that this part of the Bill might be withdrawn and returned after more thought had been given to its structure. Clearly that was not going to happen and, therefore, there seemed to be no point in trying to take out all the clauses one by one.
	I withdrew my notices, but a lot of major issues remained, one of which was viability, which was touched on in an earlier debate. It is hugely important that when local authorities set their rates and draw up their schedules on the sort of flat-rate basis that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, described on the previous amendment, they must have very close regard to whether the developments that will be liable to those flat rates of CIL will actually go ahead. We have the horrid examples of previous attempts to tax increases in land value due to planning permission, all of which succeeded in doing nothing more than choking off development, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith made clear in his speech on the previous amendment. I find the absence of this requirement very worrying.
	Another aspect arises on government Amendment No. 438Q, which is in this group. It is about appeals. They will be allowed based on fact in relation to the application of methods for calculating CIL. Charging authorities can appoint a valuation officer or a district valuer to oversee such appeals, but the amendment does not allow appeals on grounds of viability. Why not? Surely, there should be some point at which a developer can say, before it happens, that if the authority is going to charge a certain amount, it will go somewhere else or not do the development and the authority will not get any investment. There seems to be no formal procedure for that and no right of appeal on viability. The amendment does not address the concerns of some of the bodies that represent major developers. The clause is indicative of the attitude of the Government on this. We will return to this, not least in the present economic climate. There must be some way in which a developer can bring concerns and say that if the authority charges a certain amount, it will go away. Then the developer and the authority can discuss what else the authority can do to help. Otherwise, this will follow the pattern of the Land Commission, development land tax and everything that has gone before. I am sure that the Minister and her colleagues in her department would be dismayed if that were to be the result of this. This is an important issue that the Bill does not address, but it must or Part 11 will be one more piece in the string of failures that we have had over the past 20 or 30 years.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Can the Minister enlighten me on two or three matters? It is natural to assume that local authorities will have different rates of CIL. It will be for them to decide. The circumstances and the procedures are set out in the consultation papers. I assume that each local authority will be able to decide what proportion of its infrastructure it will seek to fund from CIL. Some may decide that the market is so difficult that they will not be able to fund a great deal in this way and others, in prosperous, booming parts of the country—if there is prosperity and boom in the next few years—may have the confidence to aim for a much higher proportion. What average proportion of infrastructure investment do the Government expect local authorities to fund through CIL? What range have they worked on? They must have some idea. The intention is obviously that it will be an important contributor. Will there be any pressure on local authorities from the Government to aim at at least that proportion? What is the relationship between central government and local government on this? Some local authorities might decide that the way to attract development is to go for low rates of CIL. It would be helpful to know how the Government see the dynamics of that.
	My second group of questions to the Minister concern changing the rates of CIL. After a while, a local authority might decide that it had got it wrong. It might be doing better or worse than it thought. Can local authorities change their mind? Is there an interval between setting CIL, reviewing it and changing it? In the early days, I was involved in Leeds. If we got developers to come to the city, we were delighted. We were almost begging them to come and were being very generous. Ten, 15 or 20 years later, the city was in a position to be demanding in the way in which it dealt with developers. There is no certainty about these things because of the nature of development. Can local authorities change their rates of CIL and, if so, what time will have to pass before they can do that? What flexibility or inflexibility faces them? If they can change the rates of CIL, where does that leave developers who have already paid into the fund at a different rate? I accept that there will be a levy and am trying to understand how the nuances will work.

Baroness Ford: I shall try to add to this thoughtful debate about some interesting amendments. I shall touch on the issue of process and viability to be helpful on some of the concerns that have been raised. One of the things that I like about the proposition in front of us is that it combines some certainty for developers with flexibility for local authorities to take account of their circumstances. My noble friend Lord Woolmer referred to the maturity of the development process and local circumstances. The process that has been put in place over the past four or five years, by which various local authorities have developed a tariff, has been worth while, but it is not a quick process. It cannot be done in a matter of weeks. The work done by Milton Keynes Council to develop its tariff took 18 months and took account of all the infrastructure needs. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned crematoria, and the business plan for the expansion of Milton Keynes took account of everything from crèches to crematoria. Everything was put in place. The first thing that was factored in to that process—this speaks to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the displacement of funds—was the certain commitments of central government departments; the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills and so on. It was only after the local government contribution was clear and the bill of fare, as it were, for CIL was looked at that the tariff was struck at £18,500, to the satisfaction of the 18 landowners.
	In response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Woolmer, once that is legally set in stone, it cannot be changed, so the authority cannot come back three, four or five years later, change its mind and say that the tariff will not be £18,500 but £30,000.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I am grateful to my noble friend. Her experience is extremely helpful. My concern is that many of the examples that people give, including my noble friend's examples, are in the prosperous, booming areas of the south and south-east. That is not the whole of England, and there are parts of the country where that is not the case. Everyone would like to be in such an area—I apologise. People do not like being in areas where there is a lot of housing pressure, yet politicians do because it is easy to negotiate. I should be grateful if my noble friend would reflect more widely than the areas where there is a lot of pressure for development.

Baroness Ford: I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I was about to touch on that point when I talked about viability. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made an enormously important point about viability. It is not invariably the case, but it is frequently the case, that the areas that require the most investment in infrastructure are the more prosperous areas where development is on greenfield land and infrastructure has to be built or an existing settlement needs a major extension. In those situations, the way in which CIL is framed will work as it is intended to work. Indeed, the work done on the tariff, not just in Milton Keynes, but also in Bedfordshire, South Hampshire and Ashford in Kent, all follows that logic.
	However, it is exceptionally important that authorities which have a large amount of brownfield sites are able to take the time to consider whether they feel it is appropriate to have a zero charge for CIL in such situations. Frequently but not invariably, brownfield sites tend to be rich in infrastructure because they tend to be in city centres or in areas around city centres which have good infrastructure but they may have been neglected in other ways. The reason I like the proposition in front of us is that it gives authorities flexibility so that they do not need an additional take from a development because the infrastructure is in reasonably good shape or it is where it should be.
	Finally, I ask the Minister to respond to my noble friend Lord Woolmer's point about whether charging authorities will have the ability to vary the level of CIL across an authority. That goes to the heart of the point about the viability. You may have a charge which is perfectly viable in one part of an authority but completely unviable in another. I should like some reassurance that that will be possible, but not in a way that one ends up with developers negotiating every single application because that has been the bugbear of Section 106. I should be grateful if my noble friend could respond to some of these points.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to intervene as I do not have an amendment in this group, but I am prompted to inquire about one or two things. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, have raised some fundamental issues about the charging scheme. The ability of authorities to change the level of the charge is fundamental. If they have the right to charge it and the right not to charge it, they must also have the right to vary it, and presumably to vary it at will.
	That gives rise to other questions. One could have a situation in a region—we still have them—where the RDA was doing its best to encourage development and providing all sorts of incentives and a planning authority decided to levy CIL which would be seen as a disincentive or as a recycling of the RDA's money—using it in a different way. The relationship there needs to be explored.
	The second issue, which we do not appear to have thought about at all, is if there is some sort of expectation that CIL will be charged anyway, can CIL be charged where there is no demonstrable demand for additional infrastructure? We are assuming that it will go through the planning process and, of course, the planning process will throw up demand. From long observation, I am bound to say that if you ask people what they would like, they will always think of something on which to spend money. Is there some sort of standard by which we will judge areas which have a sufficiency of social infrastructure—let us call it that as that is really what we are talking about—against areas where there is a crying need for social infrastructure? That is a separate issue but if there is a clear expectation from the Government that there should be a charge and it should be paid and collected, are we raising false expectations? I really do not know.
	I have one final, slightly facetious, but none the less important, point. If an authority can charge CIL, can it have a negative CIL? That is a perfectly legitimate proposition. There is nothing in the papers which would prevent an authority from declaring a negative CIL and providing an incentive for development in its area. This is the kind of sector we are dealing with here. In dealing with her amendments, I ask the noble Baroness whether she could clear that hurdle for us as well.

Baroness Andrews: Noble Lords have put a number of hurdles in my way. A number of complex issues arise on this group of amendments. Many of the issues have evolved around the definition of viability, the way in which it will be interpreted and made to work. I am very grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lady Ford. She made it clear that we are not inventing a process of huge complexity and universality. Over the past five years at least, we have watched and observed with some pride the way in which local areas have developed local tariffs. But it has been very hard work. They have been extremely local and they have given us a very good clue about how we should approach CIL and what it is capable of doing delivering for us.
	Before I address the amendments, it might be sensible to say something, in the context of the questions which have been raised, about viability in different areas and how CIL mediates and helps to express that. We dealt with this in detail in the August document and CIL will be framed, as I keep saying, by the local development framework. If local authorities are to proceed with CIL, they will need to set charges which reflect the economic circumstances of the area and they will need to subject those to consultation with developers and the local community. On the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for example, developers will be able to make representations to the charging authority about the draft charging schedule on the grounds that it would affect the viability of their development.
	Of course, the negotiation on the right level of CIL will have to be conditioned by what will be deliverable. We have made that very clear. At that point developers will also be able to put their case in person to the independent examiner if they do not think it is the right level of CIL to facilitate what they are there to do. Subsection (9) of Amendment No. 438M contains a right to be heard. So a process is built in whereby the developer, from the beginning, is alongside the local authority saying, "These are the development plans for the area, this is the infrastructure that we will have to provide and this is how we think your charge, as you are assessing it, will relate to our capacity to pay", and so on. This is very much a local issue.
	In relation to the rural issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, assuming it is a voluntary tool, local authorities in rural areas do not have to take it up. If there is little change or development, a local authority might judge that there is a low infrastructure need or insufficient development, but it can make that choice. The point is that it is for local authorities to decide. Currently, we are considering Matthew Taylor's report on rural planning issues and he focuses on that. We will be bearing in mind his conclusions on developing CIL in relation to rural areas. Whether it is a rural area or the social areas mentioned by my noble friend Lady Ford, the point is that local economic circumstances will determine the shape and the nature of CIL.
	My noble friend asked about revision. We certainly expect that the charges will need to be kept under review and revised; for example, if changes in land values lead to the charges becoming unviable. I shall come back to that later in the context of an amendment. We are considering what the procedures for revision might look like and how they can provide for flexibility as well as certainty. In terms of differential rates, regulations will be able to allow charging authorities to set differential rates, taking into account viability in terms of development situations and so on. I hope I am getting across to noble Lords the local nature, the pragmatic nature and the flexible nature of what we are attempting to do through CIL. That will be relevant when I talk about some of the amendments.
	To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about appeal, even where charging authorities take sensible precautions to ensure that schedules set out viable charges, there may still be a very small number of cases where the level of charge set may not be affordable on a particular development. Obviously, that will be less true if the local authority sets differential rates.
	Essentially, we want charging schedules accurately to reflect the circumstances of different parts in a local authority's area and we will seek views as we continue our discussion on how that may be achieved. My noble friend Lord Woolmer asked me what proportion of infrastructure funding we expect to be funded by CIL. That question goes to the heart of it. Frankly, we do not have a view on that. It will depend very much on how much infrastructure need a local area has and what is the viability of development locally. It will be for charging authorities to synthesise those issues in their charging schedules. We cannot second-guess that; it would be wrong for us to do so.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry to interrupt, but I feel that it is necessary. If we are considering charging schedules and the viability of a project, I can remember many long-term development projects in Essex that went from financial viability to huge periods of deficit, back to viability and into deficit again during the period when they were constructed. There is a really big problem here. I see the planning system that the Government are establishing for this, but, as with all plans, fulfilment may be on a very different timescale from that which the planners—the people initiating the plan—conceive. Development plans now last for a considerable period, a timescale that is much longer than financial certainty.

Baroness Andrews: I have no quarrel with that; that is a challenge to the process of planning for the long term in relation to CIL. As I said, there is provision for review, but that is the sort of discussion that we are having with the development industry.
	I now quickly turn to the amendments. Government Amendment No. 438Cis intended to provide further certainty and transparency for developers and the local community about how charging authorities will calculate and set out the level of CIL they propose to charge. It is also a serious response to a number of the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. To this end, a new subsection (1) would require charging authorities that want to charge CIL to issue a charging schedule, which will set out the rates or criteria that will determine how much CIL will be due from each individual development.
	I hope that, along with what I will come to say about the requirement for charging authorities to provide estimates of CIL, liabilities under government Amendment No. 438L will satisfy Amendment No. 436BBA, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Minister said a moment ago that the Government were going to set up a charging schedule that would show how much levy would be charged on each individual development. Is that what she meant, or is it each class or category of development?

Baroness Andrews: I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord. I meant to say that the charging schedule will probably be based on a notion of metrics, units. The unit would carry a particular charge, and that will be multiplied by the number of units. That does not mean households or anything like that.
	As I was saying, I hope that what I have to say will satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his amendment, Amendment No. 436BBA, which would impose a requirement for regulations to specify procedures for informing current and future land owners or developers how CIL will be calculated in individual cases. We have done precisely that; so I hope that that will meet his amendment.
	We all agree that the level at which CIL is set is crucial. Amendment No. 438CC would place the Secretary of State right at the heart of the CIL process, with powers to set the upper and lower limits of CIL that charging authorities must operate within and also, it appears, with discretion to allow authorities to operate outside those rules. The noble Earl has talked a great deal this afternoon about viability. In my introduction I addressed the points that he made in his amendment, and I share his concern.
	We have made it very clear that CIL is a flexible local level charge to be set as local circumstances dictate. Of course, it is important that effective safeguards are in place against excessively high CIL charges. The framework that the Government are establishing through the amendments will ensure that CIL does not choke off development. Government Amendments Nos. 438C and 438M, in particular, set out the key matters that charging authorities must take into account in setting their CIL and provide for the independent examination in public of the charging schedule. Those are strong safeguards, but the involvement of central government is not warranted.
	Subsection (2) of our Amendment No. 438C then sets out three key matters to which charging authorities will have regard; the regulations will follow that up in more detail. First, they will have to consider the actual and expected costs of infrastructure in their area. That will be the infrastructure needed to support implementation of the development strategy set out in their adopted development plan. It will be derived from the infrastructure planning they are required to undertake, in England, by planning policy statement 12 and, in Wales, by planning policy Wales.
	Secondly, charging authorities will have to have regard to the actual and expected increase in value that arises from the granting of planning permission. As we debated this morning, expressing the source of CIL funds in that way is difficult for some parts of the industry. We are in discussion and I will come back on that issue.
	CIL is not planning gain supplement, for the reasons that we know. If it were, individual development would be assessed and charged a nationally fixed percentage of the difference between the value of land before and after permission is granted. As I said, under CIL, charging authorities should estimate the broad likely uplifts in land value for their area and consider it on a strategic level. We all agree that assessment of viability is not a precise science, but it is essential that the charging authority should have to undertake it, to ensure that they do not risk impacting on the viability of development by setting too high a rate of CIL.
	Thirdly, charging authorities will have to have regard to the actual and expected sources of funding for the infrastructure identified. That includes from central, regional and local government grants.
	Although government Amendment No. 438C amends Clause 201 to provide certainty about the most important considerations that charging authorities must consider when setting CIL, Clause 201 previously allowed for other detailed factors to be specified in regulations. Our Amendment No. 438D amends that clause to ensure that this continues to be provided for. Government Amendments Nos. 438E to 438G are consequential on new subsections (1) and (2) in government Amendment No. 438C. They delete the paragraphs in subsection (3), the contents of which have been transferred to these new subsections.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, asked important questions. Her Amendment No. 438CA would require CIL to be calculated by reference to rates or criteria in a development plan document prepared by a local planning authority. She has argued that it should be part of the statutory planning framework. One unintended consequence of her amendment would be that CIL could not be applied by LPAs in Wales or at a strategic level in London. I recognise that stakeholders want reassurance that CIL will be managed as part of the planning system, but I cannot agree with her amendment. We intend the CIL charging schedule to be a legal document and part of the folder of documents that make up a local authority's local development framework.
	We have discussed with the industry whether it is necessary for the CIL charging schedule to have the legal status of a development plan document. As the noble Baroness knows, we are after certainty, transparency and viability: hence the standardised charge. Under her proposition, however, the level of CIL would be subject to case-by-case negotiation. It would sit alongside Section 106 arrangements and would have to be part of that way of doing things. That is not what the industry wants. It would not be a sensible approach. We are very willing to continue working with the industry to see whether we can design a procedure that deals with exceptional circumstances in which a developer cannot afford to pay—I referred to that when I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—but we are trying to get away from the sort of system where there is the right to negotiate levels of CIL in every case. Such a right would defeat the object of the entire exercise.
	As our August policy document made clear, we have, crucially, accepted that charging schedules should be prepared and tested to a standard equivalent to development plan documents. They must be robust and trusted, and there must be the opportunity to test them. The Government's amendments go further than the industry has asked by setting out in primary legislation, not regulation, tough procedures that deal with the examination and approval of charging schedules and that will be binding on local authorities in the way in which the DPD is binding. This is a much better way of doing things than the noble Baroness's amendment, and I ask her with respect not to press it.
	The noble Baroness's Amendment No. 438HA would delete the reference to,
	"values or expected values or in any other way",
	in Clause 201(5). This clause provides that the CIL regulations can permit or require charging schedules to operate by reference to any measure of the amount or nature of the development. This relates to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. This might be the floor space of the development, pounds per square metre of floor space, or intended use, and retail development might attract a higher charge than office development. Other options are specified. The amendment aims to narrow these options to prevent the CIL regulations that permit or require the charging schedule from operating by reference to,
	"values or expected values or in any other way".
	There is a residual fear that the clause might lead to a PGS by the back door. However, it simply allows us to explore with stakeholders how the charging schedule should best operate. Is a per-metre-of-floor-space charge the best approach? Would a charge that is somehow linked to other relevant values be better? These could include allowances to the developer to reflect other costs arising from the development, and the costs of a planning obligation requiring the construction of a road. The amendment would not allow us to explore that in any other way, and it could prevent us from adopting other people's good ideas. I therefore ask her not to press it.

Lord Berkeley: I listened very carefully to the debate and did not want to intervene, but I really must ask the Minister a question and quote a case study. I do not understand this. It is fiendishly complex.
	A new port at Felixstowe has just received planning permission under what is in effect a Section 106 agreement, which required the best part of £100 million to be spent on upgrading the railway line between Felixstowe and Leeds. I cannot see how a local authority—in this case Suffolk County Council—can create a charging schedule that covers that kind of work and does so regularly. I am sure that it is a very good planning authority, and it may be all right for office blocks, but I do not see how this can work when something like a Section 106 agreement, which I believe this will replace, may be required. How will it work? There must be some negotiation, must there not?

Baroness Andrews: I am sorry that my noble friend was not here for our debate this morning when we said that CIL would fund everything that is needed by way of infrastructure. All the money that presently goes into infrastructure from central government and various government departments will be there still. CIL will be a local charge to meet local infrastructure needs. I take his point and I am happy to have the debate with him outside the Chamber, but it is a contextual issue he is addressing. We now are talking about specific ways in which the charging schedule will reflect the local needs of the community, but within the context of everything available to fund the infrastructure as well.
	Amendment No. 438CB would remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the procedures to be followed by charging authorities in setting CIL rates. To ensure that the charging schedules are prepared and tested to similar standards, we need to be able to set down the processes such as consultation in regulations. Our proposals to place the charging schedule within the LDF and ensure that it is prepared to a similar standard will give the status and connection to the local authority's development plan that is needed. I therefore would ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendments Nos. 438CA and 438CB.
	On Amendment No. 438EA, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, there is widespread agreement, not least this afternoon, that CIL should not choke off development. It is self-evident that the higher the level that CIL is set, the higher the costs of development. The lower the amount that a developer can spend on purchasing land for development, the more likely it is to remain commercially viable, and so on. Ultimately, if the difference between the existing value of the land and the price proposed by a buyer who wishes to develop is too low and the landowner does not sell, we will not get the delivery that we want. As I said earlier, the amendment is prompted by concerns that development viability is articulated in a way that does not capture the essential nature—or sometimes the essential difference—between parts of the industry, which we will discuss later. We remain open to amending the Bill if the right formulation can be found.
	Amendment No. 438H would add to the list of factors in Clause 201(3) which the CIL regulations may permit or require charging authorities, in setting or revising rates, to consider. The purpose is likely to be that the level of CIL set in a charging schedule is development proceeding. Ensuring that CIL does not stop development proceeding is also behind Amendment No. 444B, although the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, comes at this from a novel direction, which does not surprise me given his ingenuity. His amendment appears to require a charging authority to effectively pay compensation to a developer if CIL prevents development going ahead. His amendment would go too far to achieve what I think that he is after; that is, an incentive to the authority not to set too high a CIL charge. It would involve a detailed case-by-case assessment for each development claiming the compensation, probably by someone independent of the charging authority and developer, of the likely increase in value arising from the planning permission and the financial circumstances of the development to show that it was CIL which was preventing a development proceeding rather than other factors. This would be highly contentious and time consuming, and would encourage perverse behaviour. It might even reward inefficient developers.
	I hope that the government amendments, particularly Amendment No. 438C, which provides that charging authorities must have regard to the actual or expected increase in value arising from planning permission, clearly demonstrate that we share the concerns of noble Lords to ensure viability. It may help to allay concerns about the effect of CIL if I now turn to government Amendment No. 438J. This alters the extent of the power in Clause 201(5) and provides that the CIL regulations provide, permit or require provision to make differential rates of CIL. It picks up on the point made by my noble friend. These differential rates may now include provision for nil rates of CIL and not simply reductions.
	We think that it is conceivable that a charging authority, in developing its charging schedule, may conclude that a type or class of development or a particular part of their area—for example, warehousing—might be at the limits of economic viability and unable to sustain a meaningful level of CIL charge. This amendment would allow charging authorities to set a zero rate for that area or class or type of development if they can justify it according to local circumstances. It is not enough that we ensure that charging authorities take account of the right things to have legitimacy. We have to ensure that they are prepared to robust standards.
	As always, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is well intentioned.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Andrews: I am sorry if that sounds patronising: I really do not mean it in that sense. She knows how passionately I put forward notions of partnership and the local duties of partnership in the Bill passed last year in this House. At a time when we are trying to reduce the burdens on local authorities and business, we are trying to avoid imposing such a wide-ranging obligation on partner authorities.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether the independent examiner is interested only in the process of how the charging schedule is prepared. The answer to that is no because the independent person—this picks up a point of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—who is likely to be a planning inspector, will look at how and whether the charging authority has properly had regard to the matters set out in Clause 201 and the criteria that we have set out. He will look at how the criteria have been met as well as issues of process. In response to the wider meaning of her amendment, all this is about trusting local councils as regards who they need to engage with. We fully accept that charging schedules have to be tested to the same high standard as development plan documents. As I have said, we go further than that, as reflected in Amendment No. 438M by putting it in the Bill.
	I turn now to the questions put by the noble Baroness on government Amendments Nos. 438M and 444C, which reflect a forensic dig into the Bill. These amendments are entirely consistent because the first amendment requires that certain functions are to be exercised by the mayor only, such as the approval of the declaration under subsection (4), while the other amendment prevents the mayor from delegating functions specifically to, say, local authorities or Transport for London. The two clauses are internally consistent in the Bill.
	Who is going to do the work of independent assessment? In practice we consider that inspectors who work or have worked for the Planning Inspectorate will be best qualified to carry out these examinations, and we want to encourage charging authorities to choose from this pool. In guidance there will be assistance to supplement the inspector if they need specialist evaluation skills. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we are still considering ways to ensure that the provision is robust enough.

Lord Dearing: Some noble Lords will remember a show called "Oliver!" in which Fagin says,
	"You've got to pick-a-pocket or two".
	As currently drafted, this smacks of a situation where the pick-pocket-in-chief can choose his own jury. I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that that is not quite what the Government have in mind.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for the musical interlude, which is welcome. To ensure that the draft schedules are ready to be examined, subsection (4) requires charging authorities to accompany the draft schedule with a declaration that they have complied with the legal requirements and that they have had regard to the key matters. Subsection (7) requires the independent examiner to consider how the charging authorities dealt with the key issues, recommend that either the draft schedules should be approved, improved through modifications or rejected with reasons given and published, and in keeping with our commitment that charging schedules are tested to the same high standard, subsection (9) provides that CIL regulations must require the charging authority to allow someone, if they so request, to appear in person at the examination to make oral representations. We do not think it would be appropriate to force a charging authority to approve a schedule if it was strongly opposed to the recommendations, so subsection (10) allows it to be withdrawn.
	I turn to government Amendment No. 438N, which deals with how schedules are approved. In keeping with the arrangements for development plan documents, this amendment ensures that if a charging authority wishes to approve a charging schedule, they can do so only in accordance with the recommendations of the independent person who conducted the examination. This effectively makes those recommendations binding on the charging authority unless it chooses to withdraw it. For charging authorities which are local authorities, approval can only be by a majority of voting members at a meeting of the authority or, in the case of the mayor, personally.
	Amendment No. 438P is important because it deals with how charging schedules may come into effect and how charging authorities may cease charging CIL. This is because developers and other applicants seeking to apply for planning permission to which CIL will apply have to be able to plan ahead in terms of the likely costs of developing land. In order to do this, they need to be aware of the level of CIL that they will be charged. That is why new subsection (1) prevents charging schedules coming into effect until the charging authority has published it. We will consult through draft regulations on the most effective methods of doing that. It may be that a charging authority's plans for area change, for example if a planned phase of significant growth comes to an end. It will have no further infrastructure needs that are best met by charging CIL. We have to make provision to stop charging CIL if the situation warrants it, and subsection (3) provides for this.
	However, allowing charging authorities an unconstrained ability to stop charging CIL could cause uncertainty and would be unfair, so subsection (4) provides that regulations may specify circumstances in which a charging authority may cease to charge, for example—this will be of interest to noble Lords—when there has been a significant and unforeseen downturn in the market. We also require under a power in Clause 205(2) that there be consultation with infrastructure providers. Subsections (5) and (6) of the new clause set out how this will be achieved by a majority of members at a meeting of the charging authority, or in the case of the mayor, by personal decision.
	Amendments Nos. 438K and 438Q are integrally linked and deal with the application of the charging schedules once they are adopted. Amendment No. 438Q responds to concerns from stakeholders about the need for further clarity about what should happen in the event of a disagreement between a charging authority and a person liable for CIL on matters of fact. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for a right of appeal on matters of fact relating to the calculation of the amount of CIL. We hope there will be very few cases but, if there is dispute about whether the development is the kind of development on which CIL should be charged or the quantum has correctly identified the amount of floor space and so on, we need an appeal mechanism.
	Most disputes on matters of fact should be capable of being resolved quickly and simply. Under Amendment No. 438L, we are considering a proposal to require charging authorities to recalculate their estimate of the amount of CIL due from a particular development if requested to do so within a set time of being notified of the amount of CIL due. Only if disagreement remains after this stage would the matter become a formal appeal.
	It is obviously important that the appeal is decided by a suitably qualified person. Subsection (2) specifies that it must be considered by a person appointed by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs. It is expressed in this way because we want appeals to be considered by a valuation officer or a district valuer. We believe that the Valuation Office Agency, which celebrates its 100th birthday in 2010—I am sure we can all find ways of celebrating that—is best placed to consider these appeals because it has a proven and respected track record in property and land rating assessments. I stress that we do not intend HMRC to have any role in CIL.
	Given the relatively straightforward subject matter of any appeal, we propose that it should be conducted by written representations rather than through hearings in person. They would be binding but, of course, a further challenge in the courts would be necessary. We shall consult on the detail in the draft regulations.
	Amendment No. 438K is partly consequential. It deletes the previous provision for regulations to provide for a right of appeal. Amendment No. 438L provides the opportunity for further clarity about how much CIL would be payable under a charging schedule and about the revision of charging schedules. New subsection (8) provides that the regulations may set out when charging authorities must provide an estimate of the amount of CIL chargeable on individual developments—for example, at the time planning permission is granted for the development. This estimate could be used as the basis for an appeal on a matter of fact, as I have just described in relation to Amendment No. 438Q.
	On the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Woolmer, the new subsection (9) would expressly allow for charging authorities to revise their charging schedules, and new subsection (10) makes clear that the requirement for examination, approval and the bringing into effect of charging schedules which are the subject of other government amendments apply to those revisions in the same way as to the first charging schedule. To be clear, charging schedules should seek to reflect the degree of potential change envisaged in the development plan—for example, the anticipated changes in the economic climate—and so formal revisions of charging schedules should not be necessary simply in response to normal variations in market conditions.
	But charging authorities should keep under review the effect of the level of CIL on development in their area, perhaps through their annual monitoring report which looks at the delivery of the local development documents. If their monitoring shows that economic circumstances have changed significantly or there is a need to revise the development strategy, the charging authority should also assess the need to revise the charging schedule.
	I am conscious that a great deal of heavy, technical detail has been placed on the record. I am not sure that I could answer any further questions but I am happy to write to noble Lords if they require further details.

The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister help me? I got a bit lost at the end there, trying to absorb everything she was saying. If a local authority wants to change the level of CIL or stop it, does it have to go through the full rigmarole it went through when it set CIL? Can it just say at a meeting of the authority, "The rates are coming down from £40 a square metre to £10 a square metre", or does it have to go back out to consultation and go through the whole process again?

Baroness Andrews: It has to go through the whole process. It would be a serious undertaking to change the level of CIL; it cannot just be snuck through.

Lord Greaves: Does the Minister have an estimate of how long it would take an authority from starting the process of setting its schedule of rights to going through the whole process and getting it examined and having them in place?

Baroness Andrews: To the best of my knowledge we have not set down any timetables, nor have we anticipated any. We have some examples of the tariffs that have been worked out. The development plan document will be in good shape. We will take advice from the Local Government Association about what we might expect.

Baroness Ford: Will the Minister write to noble Lords with some idea of how long the consultation process that the noble Earl referred to will take? It is important that we understand this. I draw attention to the recent development at Elephant and Castle, where the Section 106 agreement has been revised over the past two months to enable that development still to go ahead. I suspect that if that had had to go through a whole process, which might have taken six to nine months, we would have missed the market and stalled the development. Will she give that more consideration?

Baroness Andrews: I am happy to do that. I can then reflect on some of the other elements that go into making that a certain and swift process.

Lord Dearing: In London there are two charging authorities, the mayor and the borough concerned. There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that, if the two operate independently in setting their charges, there is some mechanism for seeing that they are mutually consistent and reasonable.

Baroness Hamwee: I moved this amendment some time ago. I can speak only for myself; I thought that I understood some of this when we started at 11.30 this morning, but my confidence has drained away over the past few hours. On my own amendment, the Government, in their concern to protect partners, are not just putting an extra burden on local authorities but giving them a difficult, perhaps impossible, task. That, however, is just one of a whole range of matters. It was suggested earlier that there might be some analogy with musicals—picking a pocket or two. I have been wondering if we are somewhere over the rainbow; we may certainly be on a yellow brick road. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 200 [Liability]:
	[Amendment No. 436BB not moved.]

Lord Cameron of Dillington: moved Amendment No. 436BC:
	Clause 200, page 123, line 32, at beginning insert "Except as provided in section (Charities relief),"

Lord Cameron of Dillington: There are three amendments in this group, in the name of myself and others, that provide for a comprehensive exemption in the Bill for registered charities. I speak on behalf of the Charity Tax Group, the Churches' Legislation Advisory Service and the Charities' Property Association, of the latter of which I am currently chairman. I also speak in response to numerous letters that I have received from concerned individuals.
	As I explained at Second Reading, the effect on charities of the proposed CIL is potentially very serious. Charities do not benefit financially when granted planning permission to develop land or property for their charitable purposes. Unlike a commercial developer, charities developing their own property for their own purposes will have no end-point sale from which to pay the tax. If no concession is made and charities are obliged to pay CIL, they will have either to pay for it with their existing funds or to try to raise more money—which, in the future economic climate that we are assured is recessionary, will be quite difficult.
	At present in this country and in virtually every other country in Europe, charities do not pay tax. In the UK they are entirely exempt from income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, and receive compulsory relief of 80 per cent from council tax, with the other 20 per cent being given voluntarily by almost all local authorities. Charities also have more recently received a total exemption from stamp duty land tax. This general exemption from taxes rests on the fact that charities are voluntary bodies, living primarily off voluntary donations which, by law, must be used exclusively for the public benefit. One quid pro quo for these exemptions is that they are very strictly regulated by the Charity Commission, with their contribution to public benefit continually under review.
	There is a general recognition that charities get or give more value for money than anyone else, including government, because they are so close to their beneficiaries and attract a massive number of volunteers—over half the adult population of the country, in fact. They are unique engines of social cohesion and add huge benefit to our community infrastructure. Of course, the Government recognise this and are currently engaged in a programme of encouraging and making better use of this so-called third sector.
	Meanwhile, CIL could be particularly damaging to charities. For instance, the liability of charitable housing associations and social housing would be huge, and to what end? There is trouble enough funding social housing. In this context, I refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Best, which I strongly support. Anything which gets in the way of the provision of affordable housing should be resisted at all costs, especially, in my view, rural affordable housing. There is still a great lack of clarity regarding the relationship between CIL and the Section 106 agreements, which is yet to be ironed out. However, I will let my noble friend speak to his amendment, saying only that I support it.
	On the general exemption for registered charities, schools and colleges need to develop their facilities for the furtherance of their charitable purposes, and the same goes for churches and village halls. A recent survey of village halls in Devon alone shows that over the next three years, £23 million will be spent on extensions, improvements and new build to village halls in that county. As for housing associations, what on earth would be the point of them paying CIL when they should probably be recipients of the funds? It is like a money merry-go-round.
	On a larger scale, the Wellcome Trust is hoping to embark on a joint medical research facility at King's Cross with Cancer Research UK, MRC and UCL. This project will cost something in the region of £500 million and CIL, if charged, could effectively kill it.
	These examples will be replicated up and down the country. As certain as night follows day, if charities have to pay CIL, they will have to cut back on their activities—activities which are recognised by all to be the best value for money that society can have. There can be no possible point in charging them this levy. Without a full exemption from CIL, it is certain that many new charity-led community and redevelopment projects will not proceed or will be restricted.
	To give credit where it is very much due, the noble Baroness and her department have recognised the importance of everything I have said and of exempting charities from CIL. I thank the noble Baroness very much for her kind personal attention to this matter and for the time that she and her department have spent trying to resolve it. But unfortunately, government Amendment No. 437C does not meet the needs of the charity sector. First, it does not state unequivocally on the face of the Bill that charities should be exempt from CIL. It leaves too much to secondary legislation and subsequent regulations which, I believe is very dangerous, as do most people. It also leaves too much discretion to individual local councils. Charities will not have the resources or expertise to argue for specific relief with each relevant charging authority unless the principle of the relief is enshrined in legislation. In our view, discretionary relief is not sufficient.
	Without going into too much detail here, references to exemptions "in specified circumstances"—whatever that means—do not sound very convincing. In addition, too much discretion is given to the charging authorities. As I say, charities might find themselves having to negotiate individual projects with individual councils. Will they find themselves being forced to go where they can get the best deal on CIL, which may not be ideal for their purposes? You have to bear in mind that some charities cannot pick and choose so easily; for example, there are limits to where a new lifeboat station can go.
	Then there is a reference in the government amendment to a charity,
	"of a description specified by the regulations".
	That is very dangerous. Under English and Scots law, charities operate by definition for the public benefit. We would not want to see charitable purposes cherry-picked by either central or local government. If a body is regarded as charitable by the Charity Commission or the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, that should be a sufficient test. We are looking for a definitive exemption in the Bill, as in our amendments.
	The Government have indicated that seemingly the only reason why they cannot agree to our amendment is that they are concerned that any concession might breach the EU rules on state aid. We entirely understand that the Government are under an obligation to observe EU law, but the group of charities supporting my amendment have consulted a specialist in European business law, Professor Martijn van Empel, who teaches both at the international university in Rome and the University of Essex, and who concluded that an exemption for charities would not affect trade between member states and would not therefore run counter to the ban on state aid as provided by article 87 of the EC treaty.
	I realise that lawyers disagree—that is how they make their money—and that in this case government lawyers are not so certain, but it seems strange that in virtually every other country in the EU apart from Sweden charities can be exempt from tax, including CIL equivalents in some member states, and exempt without challenge. It is also strange that charities in this country can be exempt from every other tax—which, considering the sums involved, would seem far more serious breaches of the rules than an exemption from CIL without also provoking a challenge. Even if one assumes that no challenge has come because the exemptions from income tax and capital gains tax have been in place too long to be challengeable, why is it that the Government only relatively recently applied the exemption in full for the stamp duty land tax? Our amendment is based on the exemption clauses referring to stamp duty land tax, on the basis that if these clauses were acceptable to the Government then, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander.
	I get the feeling that this is a very good example of UK gold-plating to EU legislation, which is a defect to our system that I have come across in many other fields in the past. I regret to say, therefore, that in spite of the Government's worries about state aid, we would still insist on a mandatory exemption for charities in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My name is attached to this amendment and to subsequent amendments. I apologise to the Committee for not having taken part in proceedings before, and not having taken part in Second Reading on 15 July. I was abroad at the time, but when I read Hansard and saw that there were 37 speakers and that the debate finished at half past midnight, I suspected that another speaker would not have been particularly welcome at that time.
	I have a particular interest in the charitable and voluntary sector and therefore in the implications of CIL for the sector. I declare an interest, which is in the register, as president of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I have noted and read carefully the amendment tabled by the Government in the name of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 437C. While I accept that it goes a little way towards meeting the concerns of the sector, in essence I find it dangerously imprecise and extraordinarily permissive. The detail of the wording says that the regulations must,
	"provide that an exemption or reduction",
	may be allowed. A reduction could be something or nothing; it could be 1 per cent. Therefore, that might provide a useful means to charity but it might also be a means to charge charities at effectively the full rate of CIL.
	The second paragraph of the new subsection proposed by the Minister's amendment states that the regulations will permit charging authorities to make arrangements to reduce. Permission is all very well, but which charging authority faced with a golden goose will step aside?
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I argue that the Government should recognise the special position of charities, which, as he said, are exempt from tax apart from VAT. This is not a party political matter; it is a situation which has persisted for many years and which the Government should now take on board.
	As the police would say, I have form on this matter, because I had the pleasure of taking the Charities Bill through your Lordships' House from the Front Bench. I have put my name to amendments in this group because I have three major areas of concern about what the Government are doing. First, the Government's proposal is quite at odds with their stated policy objectives as regards the voluntary sector. Secondly, unless a full exemption is given, the practical implications for charities are potentially very serious. Thirdly, the Government fail to recognise the particular role and duties imposed by law on charities and their trustees.
	I shall deal briefly with those concerns in order. The first is on the Government's policy towards charities. At Second Reading of the Charities Bill on 20 January 2005, the Minister's colleague, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said:
	"The Government's three aims for the Bill are: first, to provide a legal and regulatory environment that will enable all charities, however they work, to realise their potential as a force for good in society; secondly, to encourage a vibrant and diverse sector independent of government; and thirdly, to sustain high levels of public confidence in charities through effective regulation".—[Official Report, 20/1/05; col. 883.]
	I call that a ringing endorsement of a charity and voluntary sector. I shall not bore the Chamber by quoting more extensively from the noble and learned Baroness's speech, nor from the Minister who did most of the detailed work during the passage of the Bill, the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. In the light of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, government Amendment No. 437C is an apology for an amendment, with many weasel words and carefully phrased let-out clauses. If the Government really believe that the voluntary and charity sector is important, as they said it was, they should allow a full exemption now.
	Secondly, I turn to the practical implications, some of which were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In essence, many charities are fixed-asset rich and liquid-asset poor; that is, their assets are tied up in a building—it may be a school or housing. They have relatively little cash apart from working capital. Indeed, we want them to have relatively little cash because we do not want them to be sitting on piles of money, but to use their resources for the society in which they operate.
	From time to time, they will need to upgrade their assets. They might wish to put a language laboratory into a school or upgrade sheltered housing with ramps, new alarm systems or some new provision of health and safety. To do this, they will probably have to sell part of their assets—it may be a bit of their land—and they may wish to maximise their return by doing so with planning permission. If CIL is to be imposed on them, either they will have, as the noble Lord said, to raise money to pay the tax—it is not attractive to go rattling the bucket and saying, "Will you give me some money to pay some tax to the Government?"; I am not sure that the Government would wish to be portrayed in that light either—or they will have to skimp on the project, or they will have to sell at a lower price to reflect the impact of CIL.
	What about gifts that are not directly linked to the charity? An example might be a well run charitable school in London, meeting all the targets and doing a really good job in its community. It has many supporters, one of whom has, let us say, a weekend cottage in Norfolk with a garden of two acres. He decides because he has supported the charity for many years to leave the cottage and its grounds to the charity in his will. When he dies, the charity will then be faced with three options. The first is to sell as is. Secondly, it might be advised that it is in a village where the infrastructure plan suggests that development could take place and that if it applied for planning permission for four houses in the garden, it could then sell at a better price. Thirdly, it will have just to pass it on without getting the full benefit of the enhancement in value. In each case the funds will have to be—not may be—deployed for the educational charity back in London which received the gift. I say to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that I am not sure that his Amendments Nos. 438A and 438B cover charities receiving gifts that are not linked to the original site. Therefore, if CIL is proceeded with, people may either be deterred from giving because why give money if the Government are going to garner part of the gain in the form of tax, or the charity has to sell without maximising the full potential return.
	Finally, I tackle the special role and position of charities. The 1601 Act presumed charitable purposes for three activities—the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion and the advancement of education. The Government's 2006 Bill removed that presumption. No longer could you presume that you were charitable because you carried out one of those functions. Now you have to be within one of the 12 purposes laid out in that Act. So every charity has to go through two threshold tests. First, are they charitable? Do they fit into one of those categories? Secondly, and most importantly, do they provide a public benefit? The Charity Commission now has increased powers to ensure that those two tests are being met. So a charity must always deploy its funds in pursuance of its charitable objects, and these must have a benefit for the public. If it fails to do so, its trustees—and, indeed, it—are liable under the law. Therefore, the idea that somehow huge windfalls for private companies or individuals involved with charities might take place if CIL is not imposed is fanciful. If the Government really want to do what they say they wish to do—to enable charities to realise their full potential as a force for good in society—then they will not seek to impose CIL on the sector. I understand, although I am no expert in these matters, that there is in any case the backstop powers in the Town and Country Planning Act to deal with extreme cases.
	I have not seen the noble Baroness's speaking notes but I can probably guess what they are going to say. First, there will be honeyed words about how important the charitable sector is, how the Government believe they are doing a wonderful job, the many things that the Government have done to encourage the charitable sector, and how indeed they have produced a whole Charities Act to show that they mean that the charity sector is very important to them. So we will have, I am sure, a deluge of honey.
	After the deluge of honey we will then have a further enticement about regulations. We had the demolition of the regulation argument from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in the Second Reading debate. Indeed, the words of the Minister's colleague, John Healey, in the Committee stage in the House of Commons caused one to have further doubts about what might lie down the road because, as people have pointed out in several debates earlier today, we do not know what the regulations are going to be. The second thing to be said about regulations, of course, is that when we get them they are unamendable, so we are stuck with what we get at that particular time.

Baroness Andrews: As the noble Lord is representing the NCVO, which is a hugely reputable national organisation, I presume that he has already been involved in discussions at some length with us about these regulations and will continue to want to have those discussions with us as we work through the very complex difficulties that this poses and the need not to create unintended consequences in legislation.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am sorry if she is taking my remarks amiss. Of course I am well aware that discussions have been going on, but the Bill is now passing through the House, and if we do not make these changes now we will be left only with statutory instruments to deal with. We are not yet clear how the charitable sector is going to be dealt with. Indeed, as I pointed out, the Government's amendment has several lacunae in it.
	The noble Baroness and I have debated many times in the past and her responses have always been very sympathetic. I suspect that she feels that she is put in a very unenviable position in trying to force the CIL on to the charitable sector. I suspect that the hidden hand—the elephant in the corner of the room—is the Treasury with its persistence and everlasting concern about tax leakage. I hope that she will understand that there is very strong feeling about this in the charitable and voluntary sector. The amendment has support from all corners of the Committee. I hope therefore that she will be able to commit the Government later today to bringing back a full exemption by means of amendment on Report—no ifs, no buts and no maybes.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I find myself in a similar position to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in that I was unable to be present at the Second Reading debate, and have been unable to take part in the Bill so far. However, I have listened a lot today and am attracted to the Bill in many respects, but dearie me, we seem to be dealing with the convoluted infrastructure levy. I am trustee of several charities. I am unconvinced that any of them is likely to be involved in what may happen, but they are listed in the register of interests. Perhaps the Historic Chapels Trust and Pennine Heritage are two, as they own buildings.
	"Charity" is a precious word; it is a good word and held in high esteem. It is certainly not mentioned in the same breath as tax in the Bill. It might be mentioned in the same breath as "tax rebate" or "tax payment", but not tax. I have been looking. Is this a tax or is it a specific sharing of a necessary cost? The introduction to the executive summary, which I just happened to pick up from the Printed Paper Office, says:
	"The proceeds of the levy will be spent on local and sub-regional infrastructure to support the development of the area".
	Those seem to be the same sorts of things that income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax are spent on.
	I have been wondering how real this will be. What do charities do? How could it come to pass that this gets serious? I say to myself that a charity will not build a supermarket. What are they going to do? I look no further than where I live, in Calderdale, where our present mayor's mayoral appeal is for a children's hospice. That was also the mayoral appeal last year for the adjacent authority of Kirklees. Those promoting the hospice believe it right to have this place built to cover children of both geographical areas. I wonder whether somebody else could do it; perhaps some public sector body could build something of that nature. However, it is being done by a charity. I wonder whether those involved in endeavouring to raise that money will at some point ask whether there is more to raise because of a levy to pay.
	They might then be told that, because of highway problems, more money must be raised. They would be rattling the tin or running bring-and-buy sales, or whatever, to pay for highway improvements that it is suggested their project makes necessary. Yet everybody knows that those highway improvements are needed anyway, and it is an excuse.
	I mention the hospice being built for two local authority areas because they have chosen a site not in Calderdale, but in Kirklees. If we look carefully at the clause, however, we find that, under the Bill, and even under the Minister's amendment, there can be different policies in each local authority area. These people have the site but, in future circumstances, would they have to have been scratting about to see what sort of levy proposals there are in this or that authority, to determine where to put this much needed service? So we want none of that, looking at the whole business of charity, its precious nature and people endeavouring to do good in this way.
	The government amendment adds yet more doubt. The whole provision introduces doubt. Clause 198 states that the Secretary of State may introduce CIL. An amendment that was agreed states that a charging authority may introduce CIL. Therefore, the Secretary of State and a charging authority may introduce it. Further, government Amendment No. 437C states that,
	"regulations must either ... provide",
	exemptions or reductions for charitable purposes or "permit" them. That introduces further doubt. We want to get rid of doubt. I hope that, at least as regards the charitable sector, there can be certainty in the legislation. However, if the government amendment were accepted, there would be more doubt.
	Clearly, much work has been done on this matter and people have expressed their concerns about it. However, much more could be done, and I encourage the Minister to make certain that it is.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: I declare the interests that are recorded in the House of Lords Register of Interests. I give tempered support to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I echo what he said about our gratitude to the noble Baroness for her tireless, accommodating manner and that of her officials in trying to work through tricky, sensitive issues. I am sure that the Government do not wish to impose additional burdens on charities, especially at a time in our nation's and world's history when there are likely to be increased demands placed on their services. Therefore, I am grateful for the concessions in government Amendment No. 437C.
	I do not want to duplicate what has been said, but rather to underline it and give it a little added emphasis. What still worries us is not the Government's intention but its possible execution, particularly given the fact that the wording of Amendment No. 437C is largely permissive. We are worried about the power to specify a description of a charity in the regulations, which might mean that some charities will qualify for an exemption while others will not. That would be invidious for the charitable sector. Equally, permitting,
	"charging authorities to make arrangements for exemptions"
	rather than requiring them to do so opens up the possibility of some charging authorities being generous to charities while others might make no concession at all. Again, that would be very invidious. I believe that point was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	We certainly do not want a situation in which individual charities have to negotiate with individual charging authorities. There is also the danger that adjacent charging authorities might adopt different policies or exemptions or reductions. Charities might vote with their feet and decide not to develop the areas they were going to because of a bad deal on CIL, yet those might be precisely the areas that the voluntary sector ought to develop for the good of the community.
	It ought to be remembered that many charitable developments constitute infrastructure. The most obvious example that comes to mind is that of voluntary aided schools. Indeed, earlier the Minister referred to schools as part of the infrastructure. Communities need decent schools if they are to function properly, and it makes no sense to operate a planning system in a way that discourages new school building and school refurbishment. To cut to the quick, we hope very much that the Government intend that charities should be given a general exemption, but we would prefer to see that in the Bill.

Lord Best: I have two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 437AA and 444A, which were most helpfully prepared by the National Housing Federation, Shelter and the Chartered Institute of Housing. Both these amendments concern the relationship between CIL and affordable, so-called social, housing. It would be a disastrous unintended consequence of the provisions for CIL if this levy led to a sharp reduction in the number of homes built for those unable to buy or rent on the open market.
	We are now discussing the levy against a backdrop of very little new house-building of any kind. Ambitious targets for affordable housing now look painfully vulnerable. The Government have set their target as 70,000 extra affordable homes annually and, if CIL was levied at the kind of level that we think it might be, say, £20,000 per home, CIL would require payment of something like £1.4 billion per annum from the affordable housing sector. At a time when numbers of repossessions are rising, and waiting lists for housing association and council homes are growing rapidly, surely CIL must help, not hinder, the flow of more affordable housing.
	Housing associations struggle to make the sums add up and the books balance at present. Adding extra expense is bound to push many projects over the line of viability and affordability. Perhaps the Government will be willing to reimburse any extra cost attributable to producing a housing development to which CIL is added. Unless the Government are prepared to increase the scale of funding overall for social housing, higher grants per home would simply mean fewer homes from the total available. Can it be argued that the imposition of CIL will not lead to a much higher cost of production for each home, because planning conditions already require payments for comparable purposes which, in the future, will simply be absorbed in the CIL?
	The hope must be that CIL will raise more for infrastructure and related costs than do the current arrangements. Some of the extra will come from the levy being charged on commercial developments and on smaller scale developments that currently escape planning, but the housing associations would still be affected by CIL being imposed on some of the smaller developments that they currently pay nothing on, because they are below the level at which obligations kick in. Indeed, on their larger developments, it seems certain that schemes will have to pay a major contribution towards increasing the resources available overall towards infrastructure costs.
	I hugely welcome the idea of exemptions from CIL for charities and for developments for charitable purposes. I look forward to hearing more about those plans from the Minister. There may be improvements to the Minister's proposals, as my colleagues are suggesting today, but it is clear that once again the noble Baroness is prepared to bring forward amendments to the Committee that will greatly improve the legislation that we are scrutinising.
	Nevertheless, even if those exemptions prove to cover charitable activities adequately, they may not reach much of the affordable social housing created by the housing associations, the local authority arm's-length management organisations—ALMOs—and the new local housing companies envisaged in the Housing and Regeneration Act. Many housing associations are charities, from the older trusts such as Peabody and Joseph Rowntree, to the newer organisations of the 1960s, such as the Notting Hill Housing Trust, and the one in which I declare an interest as its chair, the Hanover Housing Association. In order to obtain funding from the GLC in the 1970s, when I was secretary to the London Housing Association's council, it was necessary for a housing association to be registered as a charity, to provide greater reassurance to the GLC as supplier of funds. That rule did not apply in other parts of the UK. Many of the housing associations, for example, most of the bigger ones in the north of England, have never been charitable bodies, even though they are non-profit social enterprises.
	Could the work of all these organisations be regarded as—I quote the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—"development for charitable purposes"? Will this be the basis of the description to be specified by regulations? Is it the Government's intention that all affordable housing will be exempt from CIL? As these are murky waters surrounded by uncertainty, my Amendment No. 437AA seeks to put that exemption beyond doubt by ensuring that CIL is not levied on any development of social housing, as clearly defined by Section 68 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. My amendment is clearer and more straightforward than the new charity exemption clause.
	My second amendment, Amendment No. 444A, comes at the problem from a different angle. Nowadays, as your Lordships will know, affordable housing is often secured through the planning system. In order to obtain planning consent for what is hoped to be profitable housing for sale, housebuilders and developers are required through a Section 106 agreement to produce a percentage of the homes as affordable social housing. This arrangement counts for some three-quarters of all new affordable housing. Usually, these homes are sold immediately, at a pre-agreed price, to a housing association which will own and manage those homes. To pay the developer's price, the housing association may need to draw down some social housing grant from the Housing Corporation or, in future, from the Homes and Communities Agency. The developer must also contribute towards the cost at the very least by foregoing some of the profit that it could have made if the homes had been sold on the open market, rather than as affordable housing.
	Negotiations on just how much affordable housing can be extracted from a development are often tortuous. The local authority will usually have set a target—say, 35 per cent of all new homes, or 50 per cent in some high-demand areas. Site-by-site reductions will be subject of negotiation. A brownfield site with heavy remediation costs may be unable to absorb the same level of affordable housing as is feasible for a straightforward greenfield site. The local authorities need to have considerable sophistication when dealing with the negotiations. Housing associations are sometimes innocent bystanders when these arguments are raging between councils and housebuilders. Sometimes associations are responsible for the whole development, including sales and affordable housing, and they are the ones who negotiate directly. I have been in this position at the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, and I know how delicate the balancing act must be handled between the viability of the whole project and the percentage of social housing that can be including within the scheme.
	Amendment No. 444A seeks to ensure that those negotiations are not thrown out of kilter by the arrival of CIL. If the levy increases the cost of the scheme and reduces its profitability for a developer, or its viability for a housing association, it is very likely that affordable housing will take the first hit. My amendment avoids this hazard by ensuring that CIL is not the first call upon the developer's resources, but affordable housing is. CIL might, therefore, have to take the strain, but not the quantum of affordable housing, if there is not enough in the kitty for both.
	I hope that the Minister will once again help us to improve the Bill and protect the affordable homes that will be desperately needed in years to come.

Lord Berkeley: I shall to speak Amendment No. 438 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has apologised for not being here. I am afraid that the amendment adds to the list of pleas for exemption from CIL—in my case, the railways.
	Some people might think that Network Rail is a charity; it is, in fact, a not-for-profit distribution company—in the private sector, according to the Treasury, although most of its money comes from government in one shape or form. I tabled the amendment before I read my noble friend's Amendment No. 437A, and it rather looks as if developments of railway infrastructure will be exempt. I would be grateful if my noble friend confirmed that.
	However, that leaves stations. They are part of a regulated railway. Network Rail calculates that if it has to pay CIL on station developments, it will cost about £250 million a year. It may have to pay CIL, but it may be that the train operators, which have been given franchises by the Government, will have to pay Network Rail. One is likely to have a virtual circle of train operators bidding for franchises, not knowing how much CIL they will have to pay if they wish to propose upgrades to stations. There will be added risk and uncertainty. I suspect that it will end up with stations not being developed. What normally happens with many station developments is that local authorities contribute to them. We see that in many places around the country. We will go from a situation in which local authorities are contributing to rebuilding station buildings, better platforms or better car parks, to one in which they will tax Network Rail so that it will pay. One does not need a PhD to understand that the consequence will be that station developments will not happen. I hope that the Minister can give me some assurance on this because it is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences.
	I have one other question, which follows from Amendment No. 444A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Can the Minister explain when, under Clause 208, Section 106 agreements apply and when CIL applies? The circumstances look vague. Is it possible for local authorities to apply both at the same time?

Lord Greaves: I would like to associate the Liberal Democrats with much of the debate on this group, particularly the representations that have been made about charities and social housing. My noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland threatened to make a guest appearance in this debate, and I do not think he disappointed us when he followed the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
	I shall make a few comments about local sporting facilities and sports clubs. I refer to government Amendment No. 437C. It has been suggested that it does not meet the Bill in a number of ways. It refers to charities, but not to community amateur sports clubs, which are not necessarily charities but perform a similar function. In various Acts, they are set alongside charities as benefiting from, for example, gift aid on donations and often relief from non-domestic rates. If the Government are pursuing this amendment in its present form, will the Minister have a look at whether community amateur sports clubs can be added to it? Local sporting facilities are a vital part of community facilities. I do not have to go into detail about their benefit to local communities, not least to those who take part in the sporting events. They benefit health, welfare and so on. It would be unfortunate if they were caught by the community infrastructure levy in the way that charities may not be—I use the "may".
	There is also a general concern about the effect of the changes on the very real benefits which local sporting facilities and many other local community facilities get, at the moment, from planning obligations through Section 106 agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised the relationship between the two. It is estimated by Sport England that, in 2006-07, sport benefited to the tune of £21.3 million from planning gain. Clearly, there is a potential in the new system for bodies, which at the moment are benefiting from money from planning permissions, having to pay over money in future. Where is the balance likely to lie? Those real concerns exist not just in local sporting facilities, but also in a number of different sectors. It needs bottoming.
	On a more general point, the more I listened to the debate on CIL this morning and this afternoon, the more I came to the view that it may well be a piece of legislation which we spend a great deal of time worrying about, and which is never brought into effect. The more one looks into it, the more one sees the unintended consequences and complexities. In the end, people will say that it is not the answer and we will have to go back and think again.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the regulations provided for in government Amendment No. 437A, where it says:
	"works, or changes in use, of a specified kind not to be treated as development".
	I have received a representation from the United Kingdom Business Council for Sustainable Energy—a very worthy body—which cuts right across the normal divisions between business and the environmentalists. It represents both and seeks to find as much common ground as possible. It is saying that the inclusion of energy infrastructure projects would be perverse in that CIL is intended to provide funds for infrastructure. The short answer is that CIL is there for things like roads, hospitals and schools, whereas the kind of infrastructure we have been discussing in the earlier part of this Bill is very different. The industry has always been happy to work with local authorities on Section 106 agreements, such as the benefit to society from the introduction of what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, at an earlier sitting of this Committee, referred to as unfriendly neighbour projects, or words to that effect.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: Bad neighbour projects.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: In terms of a local community, a major energy installation could well be regarded as a bad neighbour project. At the same time, we all agree that that is essential; it is what the first part of this Bill is all about and it is a matter of how one reconciles local communities to that. The answer is that you can provide them with a variety of advantages and benefits which are specifically related to the building and use of a project, and which can therefore be seen by the developer as part of his good community relations. The question that has been put to me is whether CIL will come on top of that? How will CIL be worked for those very large structures that we talked about earlier in the Bill? More specifically, are these the kind of works which the Government are minded not to treat as development, as regards the regulations referred to in Amendment No. 437A? There is a lot of uncertainty here. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to railways and gave a very good example of his Felixstowe railway that required £100 million to be spent on a line from Leeds. There is a variety of projects. If we could have an answer to that when the noble Baroness winds up, I should be extremely grateful.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We are at the core of the problems that CIL throws up. We will have to finish with absolute clarity about this difficulty in the Bill; at the moment, we do not have it.
	First, I shall deal with my amendments in the group. Amendment No. 437 is simple. It would ensure that any development not requiring planning permission will not pay CIL. I am moderately happy that the noble Baroness has that situation well and truly covered. I am very grateful to her for that because, as the Bill was drafted, that was not clear.
	My other amendment, which I freely admit, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, is not "legally satisfactory", was tabled deliberately to ensure that we covered absolutely the subject of this debate, which is about charities and charitable works—which, in my view, must have clear exemption expressed in the Bill. The other half of the amendment picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but in a much wider context. It states that the provision of infrastructure should not be eligible to pay CIL. It seems to be the ultimate churning of money to take money from people to provide infrastructure but make the people who provide infrastructure also to pay that charge. That is illogical in the extreme.
	That applies just as much to road improvements, electricity transmission—power stations have been raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin—and all the other infrastructure that we require in a modern society. The only effect of adding CIL to those developments will be to increase the charges that the developers have to make for that infrastructure—so far, we use roads without charge, but it will come back in the form of increased excise duty on fuel, or something like that. Putting the charge on electricity generation or transmission will increase the cost to the customer. There is no escaping that. As I said earlier, my view is that the whole scheme will ultimately have an inflationary effect and increase charges generally across the board—not exactly something that I look forward to.
	I shall not try to repeat the arguments that everyone made on the question of charity. The case was admirably and clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and finished by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, who was absolutely right about "charity" being a good word. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham said that the nature of the Bill means that the exemptions are optional. That is not satisfactory. They must be absolute, and this must be clearly stated so that people understand. Without that, the Bill is in danger of having a well deserved reputation for having an ill effect on how society develops.
	This applies across the board and not only to the charitable sector. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was not quite sure whether aspects of social housing were charitable. I am sure that he is right to make that point, because aspects of social housing and affordable housing are in the field of desirable infrastructure from which the whole community benefits. In my view, CIL is designed to provide a certain amount of local icing, not to affect greatly the main infrastructure provision. That is not clear in the Bill, and it must be made clear as a result of our debate. That may not happen today, but I hope that the Minister will take this matter away and think about the wording both of the Bill and of some of her amendments, which do not go sufficiently far. We need this absolute clarity for the sake and the benefit of everyone across the country.

The Earl of Caithness: This is good, heavy pounding, is it not? I have six amendments in the group. The first amendment is on a slightly different subject from anything that we have discussed so far. I tried to get it degrouped, but the Government would not let me, which further complicates the debate.
	Amendment No. 436C would change the timing of the payment of the liability. It should be paid when the necessary infrastructure for the development has been completed. The argument for this is really very simple. I want that infrastructure to be built. If I have an assessment to pay for the cost towards it, what certainty is there that it will be built? It is a very simple amendment, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to help me.
	I put my name to Amendment No. 437, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. He did not mention it specifically, but it is important that CIL is not payable on any development that does not require planning permission. If development is exempted, there should be no CIL, which should be clear in the Bill.
	I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on affordable housing.

Lord Berkeley: When the noble Lord talks about a development not requiring planning permission, does he mean that it is within permitted developments?

The Earl of Caithness: Yes. Planning is not needed at the moment and one can get on with the development. That is particularly important in rural areas, and it must continue. We discussed that two or three days ago.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Best, was speaking, I was thinking that it was about 20 years ago when, as a Minister with responsibility for housing, I grappled with affordable housing and proposed schemes. Then, as now, if there was any CIL to be paid, it would have completely destroyed any of the projects that we were pursuing.
	My noble friend Lord Hodgson commented on "or reduction" in proposed new subsection (4A)(a) in the Minister's Amendment No. 437C. As he will see, I tabled an amendment to this to leave out those words for the simple reason that there should be no reduction for charities, which should be exempt. I concur with what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said. We tabled our amendment before the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tabled his. We wanted to make certain that this issue was well aired.
	Amendment No. 437D covers particularly the small organisation, which may not have a great deal of money, but has developed something. CIL should be paid,
	"only when that value has been or is to be realised by a sale or transfer of part or whole".
	When the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was talking about amateur sports clubs, it occurred to me that this was just the sort of situation that might cover them. The Minister perhaps has listened too much to the big developers and the rich local authorities where development has been under intense pressure over the past few years. The Government have not listened enough to the small amateur organisations, small businesses, charities and individuals covered by this. In cutting the cloth for the big boys, individuals and small organisations will get hurt.
	I have a query for the Minister on proposed new subsection (4B)(a) and (b) under government Amendment No. 437C. In principle, she is right to include something like this. It is a reasonable safeguard against a developer trying to evade CIL for a development, but there should be a cut-off date. One can foresee a time when local authorities are pushed for money. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, may have put up an agricultural building, which has improved his enterprise, and seek to enlarge it. He has not paid CIL on it because what he did to begin with was exempt or was at a nil rating, but the extension would fall into a CIL requirement. Because the local authority is short of money, it puts a CIL on the original development and classifies the whole thing as one.
	I can foresee lots of situations when local authorities will go on fishing trips like that in order to raise money. They always will be short of money. Therefore, should there not be a cut-off date, such as when the development is substantially complete? The local authority should issue a certificate which means that it cannot go back and revisit CIL on that part of the development.
	My last two amendments in this group support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I should like to clarify one thing. My noble friend used the word "charity". Does "charity" cover a limited company with charitable status? It is not quite the same thing, but as long as every sort of charity is covered and exempt, I am happy.

Baroness Andrews: I have ceased to count the number of questions that I was asked in this debate. I suspect that I will not be able to answer them all and will have to write, but I will do my best. First, I should like to give a general statement. It is understandable that now we are talking about how CIL operates we have moved away from the high objectives and politics and have got into the serious and difficult technical issues of a complex set of possibilities. I understand it when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says that she is less certain than when we had our big debate. It is precisely for those reasons—when we come to talk about the charitable clauses that we have put forward, the exemptions and so on—that we are wrestling with genuine complexities. We are genuinely trying to do our best, in conversation with those who understand the impact on the ground, to determine how we can best manage this so that it is a benefit and not a disbenefit for the people we are trying to help. It is no matter whether they are developers, people who need affordable housing or the charitable sector.
	At this level of detail, one begins to realise that it is difficult. Basically, we are trying to do something that will raise money to invest in the things our communities need, whether they are hospitals, playgrounds or railway stations. Those needs are not going to go away, they will become more intense. Yes, noble Lords may feel that what we have concocted is something that will cause local authorities to take a deep breath and think again, and some may well be right to do so because of their local circumstances, but this is designed to help meet the needs of the community. That is what it is all about, and I do not apologise for the fact that it is complicated. It is also why we said at Second Reading that so much had to be left to regulation because it will be dealt with through discourse and understanding between us and the people who have deliver this on the ground. Those are my general comments about why we are at this point in the debate.
	I shall go fairly quickly. I understand the point about the groupings, but all these amendments are about different forms of exemption, so it is right to group them together. They cover the question of which developments should be liable to pay CIL, and we have heard much in the debate about exemptions for specific types of development. I shall turn, first, to Amendments Nos. 436C and 437D tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. These seek to ensure that CIL would be payable only when the necessary infrastructure had been completed as opposed to on commencement of the development in question, as currently provided for in Clause 200(2)(a). It does not make sense for CIL to be payable only once an item of infrastructure has been completed, because it may well be something required to support the development plan as a whole. Essentially it is a work in progress and not fixed in time. CIL is a source of revenue for local authorities to use in a flexible way based on local infrastructure needs and planning. As I have said before, the link between development and infrastructure is strategic rather than specific, so it is difficult to say which developments would have to pay on completion of a particular item of infrastructure, or which pieces of infrastructure a specific development had to contribute to. It also raises difficulties about the concept of completion. "Commencement of development" has a legal definition set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but the concept of completion has less legal precedent and raises issues around monitoring, checking, verification and so forth.
	Amendment No. 437D appears to require that CIL may be paid only where the value arising from planning permission is wholly realised at the point of sale or be under a contract of sale for a development or some wider area within the charging authority's area. I am afraid that the amendment is not clear on that point. It is different from the provision currently set out in Clause 200(2)(a) which requires regulations to make CIL payable on commencement under subsection (5) which allows regulations to be made to,
	"require CIL to be paid in respect of land developed in reliance on planning permission".
	The Government do not believe that payment on point of sale is appropriate for a number of reasons. First, as we have debated, it is often the case that land prices after the introduction of CIL will reflect potential CIL liabilities faced by parties interested in the land. In this way, such parties should have the means to pay for CIL on commencement of development by paying less for the land beforehand. Secondly, while Clause 200(2)(a) requires that CIL be payable on commencement, the Government envisage that the liable parties will have 28 days from commencement to pay CIL liabilities, as set out in paragraph 4.33 of the August document. Clause 203(2)(b) provides for regulations to allow payment in instalments. In this way, we are offering some release from pressure on developer cash-flows, and I think we are right to do so.
	In the case of some development, sale may occur decades later if the developers are, for example, demolishing and rebuilding on investment land they already own, and may be looking to rental from it rather than selling outright. As this is a very regular occurrence, crystallising liability at the point of sale will undermine CIL very seriously and could also distort developer decisions as to whether to sell or hold completed developments. Delaying payment of CIL until the land in question has been sold risks delaying the charging authority's receipt of CIL. Many noble Lords around the Chamber have asked for certainty in the context of our debate. What we have here is the possibility of a lot more uncertainty, imposing additional borrowing costs on the charging authority in order to fund the infrastructure or perhaps delaying its construction. A further consequence of providing that regulations may require that CIL be paid only where the value of the land in question has increased as a result of planning permission is the risk of costly disputes between liable parties claiming that the value has or has not increased. That may dissuade some charging authorities from attempting to collect CIL at all.

Lord Greaves: I understand that. Does the Minister not understand that small and local builders, in particular, finance developments as they go along? It is quite normal for Section 106 agreements to be payable or part payable on the occupation of the first house to have been built rather than on the commencement of the development. Payment on the commencement of the development would cause real problems for many small and local builders—not only in the present circumstances but generally.

Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for that.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Section 106 arrangements depend on the agreement between the developer and the authority. The first payment may occur at all kinds of different stages, dates and times.

Baroness Andrews: I take the points raised by both noble Lords.
	I turn now to the question of which types of developer and development should pay CIL—or, rather, which should not pay CIL. There have been many different opinions, some based on technical measures such as the need for planning permission, others on the type of development or the type of developer. We have always recognised that there may be a case for exemptions to paying CIL, and our policy documents set that out. Amendment No. 437 requires that CIL will not be payable on any development which does not require planning permission. I think the noble Lord thought that I had dealt with this because I have made it clear that that is indeed the case. It is evident that development that does not require planning permission in CIL terms cannot be CIL liable. That must be defined in the CIL regulations and we will do that.
	I wondered whether the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that development which benefits from permitted development rights is not liable to pay CIL, a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Paragraph 4.8 of the August policy document sets out the Government's view that most PDR development is likely to be excluded from CIL. We take that view because PDRs are a good proxy for relatively low levels of impact on infrastructure. That would mean that the day-to-day operations such as maintenance work by statutory undertakers and bodies such as Network Rail would not be liable to pay CIL. I hope that brings some reassurance to noble Lords.
	We will define the precise boundaries in regulations but we need to be mindful of the fact that some permitted development might have sufficiently significant impacts on infrastructure that a contribution ought to be sought. Planning permission for CIL purposes should not simply mean that which is granted on an application made to a local planning authority under Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because that might leave a loophole with regard to certificates of lawful development. This is important because these certificates can be issued by planning authorities to confirm that the development is lawful for planning purposes; that it is immune from enforcement action. We want to explore further whether CIL should be payable in respect of development for which a certificate of lawful development is granted in order to avoid creating an incentive for developers to undertake development without the appropriate planning permission and then later to seek a certificate to render it lawful and therefore out of reach of CIL. Furthermore, it may be that development that should be liable to pay CIL is centred through regimes outside the regime under the Town and Country Planning Act. We need to discuss with stakeholders what should constitute planning permission for CIL purposes, bearing in mind that there might be loopholes. We have not, therefore, set that out in the Bill; it will be in regulations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will not be surprised by my response to his Amendment No. 438, although I appreciate his reasons for tabling it. He is seeking to ensure that organisations whose sole activity is the provision of rail infrastructure and whose profits are used solely for the provision of rail infrastructure are exempt. I am sure he has in mind Network Rail. Amendments to achieve the same effect were twice tabled in the other place and each time they were not carried. However, the amendment is more focused on Network Rail than before. Officials have discussed Network Rail's concerns with it, and I believe that our proposals, along with government amendments tabled for other clauses, go a significant way towards addressing those concerns.
	Amendment No. 438 would exempt the relevant organisation in its entirety, regardless of what type of development it undertook. That gives rise to considerable questions of fairness, but does not mean that every development that Network Rail undertakes will be subject to CIL.
	In due course I shall come on to Amendment No. 437A, which defines what types of development will be CIL-liable. Subject to us being able to cover other structures, the core concept is that CIL-liable development will be development relating to buildings; we do not intend to cover day-to-day operational requirements. We will also be looking at development undertaken through permitted development rights; we do not propose that all such development should be subject to CIL.
	All that should be welcomed by Network Rail, but for other development we need to consider carefully whether Network Rail should be treated differently. Imagine, if you will, a situation where two office blocks are being developed side by side, one by Network Rail as a new headquarters, the other by a different developer. Is it right that one makes no contribution through CIL to the infrastructure needs it creates in that area while the other, simply because it is being undertaken by a developer that is not Network Rail, is expected to make a contribution? That is obviously unfair. Both office blocks have an impact on the local infrastructure.

Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I may help my noble friend. Network Rail is actually two separate companies. One is a regulated company that is purely to do with operating, maintaining and enhancing the network and the stations, and is not allowed to carry out property development as she suggests. That is the regulated company, which is the subject of my amendment. The other company, which can go off and develop headquarters, would of course pay CIL. I am referring to the first company, which is regulated and cannot do anything outside the regulated railway and the stations.

Baroness Andrews: I take that point, but we have to be clear that any exemptions from CIL need to be decided on the basis of objective criteria. My noble friend's amendment fails the second of those, which relates to fairness. I hear what he says, though, and I will consider the implications of it.
	I turn to government Amendment No. 437A. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about the large infrastructure projects and the implications they have for bad-neighbour questions. That is something we shall come on to in a later amendment that I seem to remember about how other countries deal with bad neighbours and give some form of compensation. These are national projects, as we know, but my instinct, although I cannot give him a categoric answer, is that there may be situations where they might be local infrastructure as well, so they might be liable. If he will leave that with me, I shall try to give him a clearer answer on that important point.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I thought the point the Minister has just raised was the precise justification for keeping Section 106 in situ.

Baroness Andrews: Section 106 certainly is in situ and local authorities can use it, as they do now, for a variety of purposes if they see fit. There can be all sorts of negotiated arrangements that follow from that. No one is going to put a stop to any of that.
	Our Amendment No. 437 deals with the definition of "development" by amending Clause 200. It is important to get that clear because we need to set out exactly what is liable to pay CIL. Clause 200 currently provides that development will be defined in regulations; the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted that in its 12th report. By providing a definition in the Bill we hope we have met its concern, and it has not commented further on that.
	The amendment defines development in line with the proposal we set out in August: it will generally be development about buildings that should be liable to pay CIL. The definition sets out that the creation of a new building or anything done to, or in respect of, an existing building is development for CIL purposes. The amendment provides that the CIL regulations may modify this definition for specified works or changes of use or structures. "Buildings" is the right definition because it flows from the purpose of the CIL regime in Clause 198(2), which is to ensure the funding of costs associated with the delivery of infrastructure to support the development of an area. The assessment of those infrastructure needs is predominantly about the location of people through their occupation and use of buildings. This approach also builds on the fact that many tariff schemes do not cover this sort of development.
	We could spend some time discussing the precise boundaries of our definition, but I think I can forestall that by explaining that the fact that a development relates to a building does not automatically mean that it will pay CIL. It will also need to be the sort of development that requires some sort of planning permission. The amendment proposes a regulation-making power to maintain clarity over time in the light of experience.
	As a consequence of Amendment No. 437A, it is necessary to amend Clause 200(3). Amendment No. 437B removes the requirement in Clause 200(3) for the CIL regulations to define development. I hope that those are the sort of certainties which noble Lords welcome.
	I turn now to the provision of affordable housing through developer contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is not a man to tangle with on these issues. As usual, he has been exceptionally eloquent and powerful. I could not agree with him more that CIL must not hinder affordable housing; it must not bring disastrous unintended consequences. I am entirely of a mind with the noble Lord.
	Concerns felt by the affordable housing sector that the introduction of CIL will squeeze contributions for affordable housing has been raised with me, and we have discussed them with the charitable sector. I have said many times in this House that the provision of affordable housing is a priority for the Government. CIL is designed to complement and not reduce existing developer contributions for affordable housing, especially at this time and for all the reasons that the noble Lord made very clear. I shall set out the rationale behind our Amendment No. 437C, which provides exemptions for charities, and also address Amendments Nos. 444A and 437AA.
	Amendment No. 444A would require that affordable housing contributions are calculated without reference to CIL liability, and that should a developer's return on investment fall below a defined threshold, CIL should be reduced on a case-by-case basis. The noble Lord is concerned that the provisions for CIL will mean that developer contributions for affordable housing could in certain circumstances be squeezed. The current planning obligations regime has become an increasingly significant method of delivering affordable housing through Section 106. The noble Lord graphically illustrated some of the difficulties that Section 106 and those negotiations cause. I am very well aware of his concerns. He says that CIL will cost affordable housing billions; our calculation is that CIL is expected to raise hundreds of millions of pounds per annum. For example, with regard to the Milton Keynes tariff, £18,000 was awarded per residential unit. That is serious investment that could be used for very good purposes.
	Particularly at this time, the Government are very sensitive to the need to protect levels of affordable housing contributions and are determined to put in place safeguards which aim to ensure that the introduction of CIL will not result in a reduction in the overall level of contributions secured for affordable housing. We do not intend initially to include affordable housing within the scope of what may be funded by CIL, but it has deliberately been included in the definition of infrastructure in the Bill under Clause 202(2)(g). If there were an unexpected reduction in the level of developer contributions for affordable housing as a result of the introduction of CIL, we can make regulations to ensure that CIL revenue could be used to top up such a shortfall if evidence showed that that was necessary. So there is a major safeguard there.
	Our clear preference is not to activate that provision because we believe that delivering affordable housing onsite through the existing Section 106 system better meets the Government's objectives for mixed communities. It allows the real needs of the communities to be articulated and expressed on the types of development and building. It is a complicated process because it has to meet the needs of complicated communities. That is why Section 106 is suitable and effective.
	We want Section 106 to continue unhindered. We set out in the August document that planning authorities that choose to introduce CIL will be obliged to set a charging schedule in such a way as to ensure it does not impede development. We made it clear that that exercise will need to take into account the costs of meeting affordable housing requirements. In every development plan there will be a specific element set aside for affordable housing. This is what the local area needs and how we, through the development document, propose to provide it; this is how we are going to ensure that we fund it. We intend that regulations will provide for a draft charging schedule to be tested through public consultation and amendments by an independent examination, which would test whether the levels of CIL set out in a proposed schedule would put at risk development, when taken with other costs faced by developers, such as affordable housing obligations. It will be dealt with and analysed as a total package.
	The recommendations of the independent examiner, who will be looking to see whether there are flaws in those arguments and calculations, would be binding upon the charging authority. Draft charging schedules set too high could be reduced by the examiner if he considered that CIL, taken with other costs and local economic conditions, would prevent development proceeding. CIL is intended to assist in securing affordable housing, not reducing it, by providing additional revenue to support the delivery of planned infrastructure needed to unlock growth. Therefore, the levels of CIL must be set appropriately to ensure that more affordable housing contributions come forward.
	I am not convinced that the proposed amendment is workable. I fear it would lead to uncertainty, complexity and delay. The amendment proposes that CIL liability should be adjusted for individual developments to take into account affordable housing contributions. That creates uncertainty over the level of CIL liability that developers will have to pay, and will lead to lengthy negotiations. It would leave at the discretion of the charging authority whether to reduce a CIL payment. There would inevitably be disputes over whether a return on investment was over or below the specified threshold. The amendment says that we would have to define that threshold in law, which would involve us prescribing a level of appropriate profit. That is an unattractive and undesirable proposition and takes us back to the site level of negotiations, which we were trying to avoid in CIL, as opposed to PGS.
	The second suggested exemption would ensure that there was no CIL to pay on social housing development falling within the meaning of the Housing and Regeneration Act. That means low-cost rented accommodation and low-cost home ownership. I have already explained that we believe that Section 106 should continue to be used to seek contributions to affordable housing from commercial developers. Many local authorities have policies of that nature, but the affordable housing that they build will, as the noble Lord will agree, have an impact on local infrastructure. A child living in an RSL home needs a school just as much as one who does not.
	The question therefore is whether CIL should be payable on affordable housing units as well as on market units. The noble Lord's amendment asks that question; our answer is that it is clear that the burden on the private developer in providing affordable housing may be significant. For example, if there is a requirement to provide 30 per cent of affordable units transferable to an RSL, in writing their charging schedules charging authorities will need to think about that and ensure that the cost of CIL when added to the cost of providing affordable housing is not so great that the development cannot happen. We will put in place safeguards to ensure that that important consideration is properly taken into account. Therefore, we think that there may be a case for recognising the burden faced by those providing affordable housing by inviting local authorities to consider whether such developers should pay a lower rate of CIL, or no rate at all. We set that out in our August document, which provides for such differential rates.
	We have to guard against complexity; we are aiming at simplicity. We do not want to introduce new distortions and unfairness. However, we would like to work further with the social housing sector to see whether we can find a way to meet the noble Lord's objectives in these proposals. We will have some conversations on that between now and Report.
	I turn finally to our Amendment No. 437C, which has not had as warm a reception as I had hoped, although I hope that what I say will heat up the Chamber a little. I do not need to be persuaded of the virtues of the charity sector. I started a charity; it became hugely successful; it did a brilliant job; it anticipated extended schools and out-of-school learning that is now the norm for this Government and in every school. I am very proud of that. However, in doing that, I came to understand full well what the charity sector faces and the serious obstacles to getting things done. Nevertheless, what we have achieved in our amendment is important.
	Since we last spoke about charities at Second Reading, we have had extensive conversations with charitable organisations. They are fully aware of what we are wrestling with and what we are trying to do. Our amendment tries to ensure that no charity engaged in development work or likely to fall under CIL suffers unfairly as a result of CIL. We intend to ensure that they are able to carry on their development work and are not damaged by it, and that there are no unintended consequences for them or us.
	The charity sector is enormous and complex beyond description, in type, range, nature, function and accountability arrangements. Our amendment places a new duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the CIL regulations either provide for an exemption or reduction in CIL where the liable party is a charity or where the development in question is for charitable purposes, or provides charging authorities with the discretion to make exemptions or reductions covering one of these circumstances.
	Noble Lords will be aware that "charities" and "charitable purposes" will by statutory implication carry the same meaning as in Sections 1 and 2 of the Charities Act, which we are proud to have introduced and which goes along with our work with the third sector in recent years to make sure that it is more robust, resilient, effective and democratic, and does the job that only it can do.
	In recent months, we have worked closely with the sector to develop a provision that works not only for the Government but for the sector and the local government community. CIL is a local tool, so we need to involve local government representatives in the design of exemptions. Under business rates, for example, local authorities have the right to ask for a small—up to 20 per cent—contribution to the costs of providing local infrastructure and services. Charities are sometimes asked to pay for planning obligations to meet local needs, so there are precedents for paying for local impacts. That stands in contrast to the national tax picture where a full exemption is often provided.
	The task for us in government is to decide where to strike the balance: whether to follow the national or local precedent in this area, or to strike out in an entirely new direction. It is not easy. We have listened to concerns—and, my word, noble Lords have been eloquent today—that charities may be adversely affected and financially impeded from pursuing their charitable activities and aims. We do not want that to happen.
	We are convinced that it is right in the case of charities for the Bill to go further than granting the powers under Clause 207(1)(c) to allow for exceptions to CIL in regulations, which was our original intention. The amendment places an obligation on the Secretary of State to act on this issue through regulations. It is not permissive in the sense that noble Lords have described. It is permissive only in allowing the Secretary of State to choose from various options. The substantive point is that it requires the Secretary of State to provide some sort of exemption or reduction for charities. The permissive element is to allow for something that is workable and provides the maximum lawful benefits to charities. We know that charities engage in a wide range of economic activity with a wide range of business models. They are specifically regulated. We need to proceed carefully, which is why we are going alongside the charitable organisations to ensure that the relief that we provide is as wide as possible without breaching the criteria that we established at paragraph 4.10 in our August policy document. All exemptions under CIL will need to be measured against the fact that they should not create scope for challenge. That would be hopeless for the charitable sector. They should not be difficult to apply or create a loophole because it is not clear what it applies to; they should be fair and not create undue distortions of competition; they should not give rise to other unacceptable distortions to behaviour or create perverse incentives; and they should not lead to charging authorities suffering a disproportionate loss of revenue which might undermine infrastructure delivery.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I do not wish to trespass, having irritated the noble Baroness earlier this afternoon. In her amendment, proposed new paragraph (a) provides for an exemption, but proposed new paragraph (b) permits one. "Provides" is not used in both cases. Surely, we are right in saying that the second part is permissive; it is not obligatory.

Baroness Andrews: That is true, but I have said that the substantive point is that the Secretary of State is required to find an exemption and then there are some choices that are also in the text of the amendment.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made an interesting point about timing. I will read Hansard carefully on that point.
	To ensure that the mechanism we provide to achieve this relief is compliant with the criteria, we have to go on talking to the charitable sector. The matter is complex and will take time. We have to consult through the draft regulations. It is therefore right that the detail of how this relief will work is laid out in secondary legislation. We have to be careful about avoidance. Proposed new subsection (4B) provides a mechanism against that. It provides a mechanism to claw back CIL money if the use of a development which was already deemed to be exempt or subject to reductions changes for a purpose which is not exempt. This addition to the Bill provides reassurance that an exemption or reduction from CIL liability relating to charities will be in CIL regulations. It is a guarantee that the Secretary of State will act. It is the right starting point for a discussion with the sectorabout how an exemption should be framed. The regulation-making power gives us the latitude to frame with care the workings of this power.
	Other amendments reflect, for example, on the notion of a blanket exemption. Amendment No. 437CZAseeks to amend our amendment so that the Secretary of State cannot provide for a reduction in CIL in relation to charities or to development for charitable purposes. If she uses those powers she must provide a complete exemption. I understand the argument, and I understand the search for simplicity and certainty, but noble Lords should follow the logic of this argument too. On arguing for a complete exemption, I would be deeply sympathetic if noble Lords could tell me where a blanket exemption would start and finish, given the complexity of the sector. What would it mean in watertight legal terms? Where would the boundaries lie across this very complex sector? How would we anticipate and deal with distortions that would occur at the far edge, where charitable activity is often a minor element of major private and commercial concerns? Those are the sort of difficulties we have to face.
	I am sympathetic, and I have set out the principles and safeguards that would guide us. We have the responsibility of ensuring that we have the right tools in the right place. We do not have an annual Finance Act in which we can put things right on a regular basis. That is why regulations are so useful to us, but that is why blanket exemptions cause us problems, for all the reasons I have said. Regulations will be subject to very thorough consultation. We do not want to unduly limit the relief.
	Amendment No. 438A seeks to secure two exemptions in the Bill for CIL. These would be for two classes of development—developments that are solely concerned with the provision of infrastructure and developments undertaken by a charity exclusively for the charitable purposes for which the charity was established. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure. It is not a homogenous category. That is why we envisage what types of development relating to buildings will be liable to pay CIL. It is worth noting that the existing system of planning obligations can operate in relation to development consisting of infrastructure. Again, the conclusion I draw, because that can cover such a wide variety of developments, is that it is not appropriate to provide a blanket exemption for infrastructure from CIL.
	As we made clear at paragraphs 4.1 to 4.14 of the document in August, we indicated that we are giving serious thought to what type of development ought to be liable to pay CIL. Government Amendment No. 437A principally defines development in relation to buildings. I have addressed the point about development rights.
	Amendment No. 438A would also exempt all charities from paying CIL where the development they undertake is exclusively for the purposes for which they were established. Our Amendment No. 437C is intended to provide assurance to noble Lords that there will be some provision providing relief in relation to charities, as I have said. Amendment No. 438B of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, specifies that limited companies with charitable status should be included. I reassure the noble Earl that in our Amendment No. 437C, our use of the term "charity" includes "bodies corporate" and, therefore, limited companies. I hope that that will satisfy him. I am not so sure about the status of sporting clubs, although we have a fairly wide definition; I will have to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on that.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 436BC, 438BA and 438BB seek to require that a charitable exemption is laid out in CIL regulations operating in a way similar to charitable relief under the stamp duty land tax. Amendment No. 438BA in effect provides that a development would be exempt from paying CIL where, on the commencement of development, the land is owned by a charity, or being developed by a charity, and it is intended to be used for charitable purposes.
	Amendments Nos. 438BA to 438BC are all self-explanatory, so I shall cut to the chase. I have listened to what noble Lords across the Committee have said, and their strength of feeling about this. I recognise the strong desire of many in this Committee and the charity sector to have confirmation of how any exemption provided for will work. I am committed to working with the sector intensively over the next two weeks, before we come back, to deliver a meaningful relief. It would be unwise to commit myself to a particular mechanism at this early stage. I must be absolutely certain and careful to ensure that the relief we provide is as wide as possible without breaching the criteria for exemptions which we have formulated, and without creating unintended consequences. That would not serve the purposes of the sector. CIL is a new tool built on the existing system for which there is no clear precedent. National taxes are cited as precedent here but, looking at the Bill after today, I do not think that anyone could claim that CIL is a national tax. It has to be an iterative process. These are local taxes
	I assure noble Lords that we will be considering a range of existing mechanisms as part of the process. We have already taken on board the principle of clawback. I have listened to what has been said this afternoon but, on the basis of what I have said in a long and wearying speech, I hope that the noble Lord with withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I thank the noble Baroness, and noble Lords who have supported my three amendments. I am encouraged by support on all sides to push on with our aims. I still fail to understand the Government's reticence, and why they seem to need their permissive regime. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, such are charity law and the powers of the Charity Commission that there is no more fear that a full exemption from CIL will be abused than any other tax exemption already available to charities.
	I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, says: we must get rid of doubt. I could not agree more. The Minister expresses her support for our general aims, but I am afraid that I still cannot see why, for the avoidance of doubt, we cannot have a straightforward exemption for registered charities in the Bill. I have no doubt that we will return to this on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 436C and 437 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 437A:
	Clause 200, page 124, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) In this section "development" means—
	(a) the creation of a new building, or(b) anything done to or in respect of an existing building.
	( ) CIL regulations may provide for—
	(a) works, or changes in use, of a specified kind not to be treated as development;(b) the creation of or anything done to or in respect of a structure of a specified kind to be treated as development."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 437AA not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 437B:
	Clause 200, page 124, line 5, leave out "development (and"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 437C:
	Clause 200, page 124, line 24, at end insert—
	"(4A) CIL regulations must either—
	(a) provide that an exemption or reduction in CIL applies in specified circumstances where—(i) the person who would (apart from this subsection) be liable to pay CIL in respect of the development is a charity of a description specified by the regulations, or(ii) the development is for charitable purposes of a description specified by the regulations, or(b) permit charging authorities to make arrangements for exemptions or reductions in respect of charities or development for charitable purposes.
	(4B) CIL regulations may provide for CIL liability to arise in respect of a development where—
	(a) the development was exempt from CIL, or subject to a reduced CIL charge, on its commencement, and(b) the description or purpose of a development changes after its commencement."
	[Amendment No. 437CZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 437C, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 437C agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 437CA to 438 not moved.]
	Clause 200, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 438A to 438BB not moved.]
	Clause 201 [Amount]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 438C:
	Clause 201, page 124, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
	"(1) A charging authority which proposes to charge CIL must issue a document (a "charging schedule") setting rates, or other criteria, by reference to which the amount of CIL chargeable in respect of development in its area is to be determined.
	(2) A charging authority, in setting rates or other criteria, must have regard, to the extent and in the manner specified by CIL regulations, to—
	(a) actual and expected costs of infrastructure (whether by reference to lists prepared by virtue of section 202(5)(a) or otherwise);(b) actual and expected increase in value arising from planning permission (calculated in accordance with the regulations);(c) other actual and expected sources of funding for infrastructure."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 438CA to 438CC not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 438D and 438E:
	Clause 201, page 124, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
	"(3) CIL regulations may make other provision about setting rates or other criteria.
	(3A) The regulations may, in particular, permit or require charging authorities in setting rates or other criteria—"
	Clause 201, page 124, line 43, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 438EA not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 438F and 438G:
	Clause 201, page 125, line 10, leave out paragraph (e)
	Clause 201, page 125, line 15, leave out paragraph (g)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 438H and 438HA not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 438J to 438L:
	Clause 201, page 125, line 37, after "charges," insert "a nil rate,"
	Clause 201, page 125, line 39, leave out subsections (6) and (7)
	Clause 201, page 125, line 42, at end insert—
	"(8) The regulations may require a charging authority to provide in specified circumstances an estimate of the amount of CIL chargeable in respect of development of land.
	(9) A charging authority may revise a charging schedule.
	(10) This section and sections (Charging schedule: examination), (Charging schedule: approval) and (Charging schedule: effect)(1) and (2) apply to the revision of a charging schedule as they apply to the preparation of a charging schedule."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 201, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 438M to 438Q:
	After Clause 201, insert the following new Clause—
	"Charging schedule: examination
	(1) Before approving a charging schedule a charging authority must appoint a person ("the examiner") to examine a draft.
	(2) The charging authority must appoint someone who, in the opinion of the authority—
	(a) is independent of the charging authority, and(b) has appropriate qualifications and experience.
	(3) The charging authority may, with the agreement of the examiner, appoint persons to assist the examiner.
	(4) The draft submitted to the examiner must be accompanied by a declaration (approved under subsection (5) or (6))—
	(a) that the charging authority has complied with the requirements of this Part and CIL regulations (including the requirements to have regard to the matters listed in section 201(2) to (4)),(b) that the charging authority has used appropriate available evidence to inform the draft charging schedule, and(c) dealing with any other matter prescribed by CIL regulations.
	(5) A charging authority (other than the Mayor of London) must approve the declaration—
	(a) at a meeting of the authority, and(b) by a majority of votes of members present.
	(6) The Mayor of London must approve the declaration personally.
	(7) The examiner must consider the matters listed in subsection (4) and—
	(a) recommend that the draft charging schedule be approved, rejected or approved with specified modifications, and(b) give reasons for the recommendations.
	(8) The charging authority must publish the recommendations and reasons.
	(9) CIL regulations must require a charging authority to allow anyone who makes representations about a draft charging schedule to be heard by the examiner; and the regulations may make provision about timing and procedure.
	(10) The charging authority may withdraw a draft."
	After Clause 201, insert the following new Clause—
	"Charging schedule: approval
	(1) A charging authority may approve a charging schedule only—
	(a) if the examiner under section (Charging schedule: examination) has recommended approval, and(b) subject to any modifications recommended by the examiner.
	(2) A charging authority (other than the Mayor of London) must approve a charging schedule—
	(a) at a meeting of the authority, and(b) by a majority of votes of members present.
	(3) The Mayor of London must approve a charging schedule personally."
	After Clause 201, insert the following new Clause—
	"Charging schedule: effect
	(1) A charging schedule approved under section (Charging schedule: approval) may not take effect before it is published by the charging authority.
	(2) CIL regulations may make provision about publication of a charging schedule after approval.
	(3) A charging authority may determine that a charging schedule is to cease to have effect.
	(4) CIL regulations may provide that a charging authority may only make a determination under subsection (3) in circumstances specified by the regulations.
	(5) A charging authority (other than the Mayor of London) must make a determination under subsection (3)—
	(a) at a meeting of the authority, and(b) by a majority of votes of members present.
	(6) The Mayor of London must make a determination under subsection (3) personally."
	After Clause 201, insert the following new Clause—
	"Appeals
	(1) CIL regulations must provide for a right of appeal on a question of fact in relation to the application of methods for calculating CIL to a person appointed by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	(2) The regulations must require that the person appointed under subsection (1) is—
	(a) a valuation officer appointed under section 61 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c.41), or(b) a district valuer within the meaning of section 622 of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68).
	(3) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about—
	(a) the period within which the right of appeal may be exercised,(b) the procedure on an appeal, and(c) the payment of fees, and award of costs, in relation to an appeal."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 202 [Application]:

Lord Patel of Bradford: moved Amendment No. 438R:
	Clause 202, page 125, line 44, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Compensation)(5),"

Lord Patel of Bradford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 438R, 442B and 442C, which deal with enforcement and compensation.
	Government Amendment No. 442B provides clarification as to the measures that the Secretary of State may set out in regulations for the purpose of enforcing CIL. First, it clarifies that regulations may provide that any interest, penalty or surcharge payable may be treated as CIL for the purposes of Clauses 202 to 205. Secondly, it limits the penalties or surcharges that can be imposed through regulations to the higher of 30 per cent of the CIL amount or £20,000. Finally, it prevents regulations authorising entry to a private dwelling without a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.
	Clause 204(3) provides powers to make regulations about the consequences of late payment of CIL or a failure to pay CIL. Such measures may under Clause 204(3)(a) and (b) include interest, surcharges or penalties. However, the Bill does not expressly say how the money received from those might be spent. Clause 202(1) says that CIL regulations must require that CIL is applied, or caused to be applied, by charging authorities to infrastructure, but the argument might go that interest, surcharges and penalties are not CIL but are sums in addition or different from it. The amendment will provide for clarity here. It ensures that we can use our regulation-making powers to ensure that any income must be spent on infrastructure or on administering CIL. It is right that we can ensure that income from interest, penalties and surcharges is spent in these ways, where it can be put to best effect. It is a constituent part of the whole CIL regime.
	By making a distinction between CIL and interest, penalties and surcharges, we consequently need to be clear that the regulation-making powers on collection and enforcement apply to them. The amendment therefore allows those items to be treated as CIL for the purposes of Clauses 203 and 204. Without clarity, authorities will be unsure whether enforcement-related income ought to fund infrastructure or whether it might be used for some other purpose; for instance, to finance their enforcement procedures.
	We consider that it is important to have the option to ensure that the money received through enforcement could be channelled to infrastructure delivery, not least because penalties may be proportional to CIL liabilities and therefore potentially quite substantial, exceeding the costs of enforcement activity. Amendment No. 442B also sets two limits to the penalties and surcharges that may be provided for through regulations. The level of the penalty or surcharge may not exceed the higher of the two—30 per cent of any CIL or £20,000.
	For most cases of persistent non-payment, we intend that charging authorities will be able to impose penalties that are a fixed proportion of the CIL amount due to ensure that the penalty imposed reflects the amount of CIL due. The limit of 30 per cent is informed by the HMRC proposal in a recent consultation as part of the ongoing review of the penalties that taxes unpaid for more than 12 months face penalties of up to 30 per cent of the amount due. For cases of unpaid CIL of less than 12 months, however, we envisage the penalties being less than 30 per cent of the amount due.
	The monetary limit of £20,000 is to allow regulations to provide for fixed penalties. For example, it is envisaged that charging authorities may be able to serve stop notices requiring development to cease where CIL has not been paid; much as local planning authorities may do where unlawful development takes place. Failure to comply with such a notice would be an offence, but rather than require such breaches to be dealt with by way of criminal proceedings, we have the option to provide for a civil penalty to be payable in substitute to a fine on conviction.
	Finally, Amendment No. 442B restricts the powers of entry that regulations may set out for the enforcement of CIL. It prevents regulations enabling, for example, charging authorities to enter private dwellings without a warrant from a justice of the peace as a means of enforcing CIL, which helps to ensure that such powers are used proportionately and appropriately. The unrestricted nature of the power currently found in Clause 204(3)(f) was a concern for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 12th report. The amendment seeks to meet that concern and, indeed, the 13th report did not raise this as a concern. The amendment contains a number of sensible provisions providing for certainty and restricting the regulation-making powers on enforcement.
	Amendments Nos. 442C and 438R relate to the payment of compensation in relation to enforcement action. Amendment No. 442C introduces a new clause to make provision that the CIL regulation may require charging authorities to pay compensation in respect of loss or damage suffered as a result of enforcement action being taken by them. The amendment allows regulations to set out when compensation may be sought, how it may be sought, how much compensation may be paid, and the methodology through which it may be determined. Disputes about compensation may be referred to the lands tribunal.
	Amendment No. 438R makes a necessary consequential amendment. Under subsection (5) of the new clause, CIL revenues, if regulations allow, may be used to pay this compensation. However, Clause 202(1) stipulates that CIL regulations must require the charging authority to ensure that CIL is spent on funding infrastructure. Amendment No. 438R adds the necessary qualification to take account of the possibility that CIL may be used to pay compensation under the new clause. The appropriate use of CIL enforcement measures could give rise to loss or damage to developers. Inappropriate enforcement could include where CIL liabilities have been paid or are not due, but the charging authority in any event requires a development to cease. This amendment would allow the CIL regulations to cater for such circumstances and offer the possibility of a significant safeguard against the misuse of CIL enforcement actions for the property and development industry. There is a parallel between these provisions and Section 186(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which provides for compensation for inappropriately served planning stop notices.
	These amendments provide safeguards against the misuse of CIL enforcement action. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I have a number of amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 438S and 442ZE tackle a problem, but in two ways. The Bill provides no certainty that new infrastructure will be delivered, nor does it outline possible consequences for local authorities that do the wrong thing in relation to the delivery of infrastructure. If a levy is collected in good faith for infrastructure, there needs to be a requirement that it is appropriately spent for the intended purpose. We all want to ensure that timely delivery is included to ensure that no local authority can stockpile funds for an unreasonable period. That is why Amendment No. 438S states that the local authority must spend the money within three years of its receipt. Amendment No. 442ZE is a slightly more subtle way of going about that, and requires the local authority to be transparent about how it handles the funds.
	I shall not speak to Amendment No. 442ZA, because we have covered that point. On my Amendments Nos. 442ZB, 442ZC and 442ZD, I ask the Minister why there should be regulations to allow CIL to be used to reimburse expenditure already incurred. Surely, if we look ahead to what a local authority wants, why should it be reimbursed for what it has already done? Similarly, why should a regulation permit CIL to be used for administrative expenses? If we are trying to deal with infrastructure, why should the administrative expenses of the local authority be covered by CIL? That would be an abuse. That is why I have specifically proposed that those two provisions not be included in regulations.
	I have also tabled Amendments Nos. 442ZF and 442ZG. They are about repayment of money. The Bill states that money can be repaid if there is an overpayment with or without interest. That is quite wrong; if there is an overpayment, I have proposed that it should be paid with interest at the rate of 3 per cent above the Bank of England base rate. My position is not fixed regarding the final half of that amendment, as long as we receive an assurance that the repayment will be made with interest, otherwise the local authority could be hanging on to money which does not belong to it.
	My final amendment is Amendment No. 442ZH. It removes subsection (6). I think it pleases my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding because it relates to tax. I thought that because the clause relates to tax, it is better out of the Bill.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: London councils anticipate that they are going to have to collect CIL for their own purposes and for the Greater London Authority. They will incur expenses in doing that. My noble friend's Amendments Nos. 442ZB, 442ZC and 442ZD remove the ability of local councils and borough councils to cover the costs out of the proceeds. I suggest that it is not appropriate for them to be accepted.
	My Amendment No. 442A is in this group. It was tabled before we saw the new clause on compensation introduced by government Amendment No. 442C. The Law Society's anxiety was that it appeared that part of the penalty for failure to pay CIL would be the removal of the planning permission, apparently without compensation. Amendment No. 442A therefore removed Clause 204(3)(d). Since then, the Government have tabled their amendment on compensation, which provides that,
	"'enforcement action' means action taken by a charging authority under regulations ... including ... the suspension or cancellation of a decision relating to planning permission".
	I am not clear how these two measures add up. On the one hand, one of the penalties for failure to pay CIL could be the cancellation of planning permission, but under the compensation clause, the local authority that does that will then have to compensate the developer who failed to pay CIL. I cannot believe that that is right.
	It may well be that I have totally misunderstood how these two clauses are going to work together. I understand this might be a complicated question. It might be wise if the noble Lord, Lord Patel, were to write me a letter about this. It may well be that I should have given him notice. We have not seen the compensation clause for very long. If the Minister could write to me about the combined effect of the ability to remove planning permission as a penalty and having to pay compensation for it, I would be extremely grateful.

Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 438T is in this group. It removes the definition of infrastructure. That might seem a little perverse after some of the debates we have had. This is another amendment that I was asked to table by the Local Government Association, which makes the proper point that every local area is different and the needs for infrastructure will vary in different places, so the Bill runs the risk of thwarting local growth and regeneration. The list is not complete. Crematoria have been mentioned at least twice this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is not a veteran, as other noble Lords are, of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, in which we spent some time considering the place of crematoria in terms of infrastructure and what is needed to support a community.
	I am puzzled by the fact that we have a list which is not exhaustive and a provision, in Clause 202(3), for regulations to amend that list. That seems to me to be a little odd. If it is illustrative only and can be revised to reflect changing needs, as the Minister in the Commons said, is it an appropriate way of addressing changing needs? The Minister has already been asked today to give us some idea of how long the process will take in each local planning authority area. We know that the proposals for CIL will have to go through an examination and that the planning inspectorate or examiner will test the authority's infrastructure requirements, but to have to go through the parliamentary process of amending regulations, when the starting point is that items contained in the Bill are "illustrative only", seems as odd as many other things we have heard today.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 439 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Berkeley who has had to go to the Institution of Electrical Engineers to deliver a lecture at 6 o'clock. I hope that the Committee will understand that he could not be here.
	The effect of the amendment is to make it clear that railways as well as roads and other transport facilities fall within infrastructure. I have come across a number of cases in Yorkshire where local authorities contribute to certain elements of rail, whether signalling, new halts, bridges, lines or rolling stock. It can be quite important in improving regional, sub-regional and local services. It would be helpful if it were clear to local authorities that railways are firmly included in infrastructure.

Baroness Valentine: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 442ZAA in this group. As we have heard, the purpose of CIL is to contribute to the funding and delivery of infrastructure. For the industry coalition, including London First, which last year put forward the proposal for a planning charge as the alternative to planning-gain supplement, the rationale of this new levy has always been about co-ordinated and timely infrastructure delivery.
	My amendment concerns the vital issue that local authorities and other infrastructure providers should be required to give a commitment to use their best endeavours to deliver infrastructure financed through CIL in a timely fashion. The amendment would require local authorities and others benefiting from CIL to give a best-endeavours commitment. "Best endeavours" is a familiar term in legislation. It was used in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Given the state of some roads in London, some may feel that even best endeavours are not enough, but it is much better than no promise of endeavour at all.
	The commitment to delivery is a vital component of the current tariff system operating in areas such as Milton Keynes. Noble Lords may be aware of a BBC investigation in which a resident of Macclesfield used the Freedom of Information Act to discover that £2.5 million of Section 106 money had gone unspent by his local authority. That might be an exceptional case, but it highlights the importance of my amendment, which would commit local authorities and other infrastructure providers to use their best endeavours to deliver CIL-funded infrastructure. We must focus on charging and collection on the one hand, but delivery on the other. The one is pointless without the other.

Lord Patel of Bradford: I will try to answer all the points that have been raised, although a few amendments have not been followed through. This group of amendments deals with three core themes: how CIL moneys can be spent; enforcement procedures; and compensation. I will deal with them in turn.
	My noble friend Lord Berkeley cannot be here and I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Woolmer has spoken to his amendment. He seeks reassurances about the types of infrastructure that might benefit from CIL and asking that railways be included within the scope of the infrastructure to which CIL may be applied by explicitly listing it in Clause 202(2).
	We fully recognise the importance of new rail infrastructure in supporting development and are clear that CIL should support railways where required. Equally, we recognise the irreplaceable role of other services in the lives of communities, such as police and emergency services. However, the amendment is unnecessary.
	Let me explain. The purpose of the infrastructure list in Clause 202 is to illustrate the types of infrastructure CIL might finance by providing a wide definition of infrastructure. The list includes examples of infrastructure that CIL could fund without stipulating in detail every item that could benefit from CIL. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list, so the fact that a particular public service or facility does not appear does not mean that it cannot be funded from CIL. The list already covers railways through its inclusion of,
	"roads and other transport facilities".
	The nature of that definition goes further than conventional concept of infrastructure, such as transport, schools, and flood defences. Because of its illustrative nature, the list also covers a range of other items that support the development of an area. That may include community facilities, schools and police and emergency services. Thus, the items addressed by the amendment already fall within Clause 202(2). We have no doubt about that. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
	In reference to the infrastructure list in Clause 202, Amendment No. 438T, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove Clause 202(2) and (3) from the Bill, which set out the illustrative list of the infrastructure items that CIL might finance and our power to amend that list. Clause 202(2) defines infrastructure by reference to an illustrative list of the types of infrastructure that CIL might finance and does not seek to be exhaustive by stating each and every infrastructure type included. However, it serves the purpose of establishing the scope for appropriate infrastructure and offering some clarity and certainty about how CIL may be used. For instance, without Clause 202(2), it would not be readily obvious that affordable housing or the provision of open space could be classed as infrastructure for CIL purposes.
	Furthermore, by providing a list—albeit indicative—Clause 202(2) gives some indication to developers of the type of infrastructure that their moneys may fund. Removing the list risks a narrow interpretation, so limiting the choice of infrastructure that local authorities may use CIL to fund, potentially undermining their ability to use CIL to support their development plans. I therefore resist the amendment and want to retain Clause 202(2).
	Amendments Nos. 442ZB, C and D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would remove the possibility that authorities could use CIL revenues to pay for expenditure already incurred and to finance administration costs directly connected with the CIL system or the infrastructure funds. Although I recognise the concerns giving rise to the amendments, I will endeavour to explain why we believe that that is probably not the best way forward.
	Taking first the suggestion that we preclude CIL from expenditure already incurred, the noble Earl may feel that that is carte blanche for authorities to misuse CIL by channelling it to finance infrastructure that has already been provided, rather than using it to finance new infrastructure or to improve existing infrastructure to unlock growth. I assure the Committee that that is not the intention behind Clause 202(6)(a). The Government have been clear that CIL is designed to support infrastructure for the development of an area, which is what Clause 198(2) provides as one of the purposes of CIL.
	Clause 202(6)(a) provides the flexibility necessary to allow authorities to choose how to pay for the infrastructure that makes their communities conducive to growth. This might involve building a new train station or repairing an out-of-use station platform to enable new lines to serve the community. Let us suppose that two developments benefit from this infrastructure, one of which is commenced before the station is built or the platform refurbished and one after. The local authority has counted on CIL from both developments when deciding to fund the station. In such circumstances, it is perverse to insist that only the development that happens in advance of the delivery of the infrastructure should fund the station, while the CIL money from the other development cannot be used to reimburse any of the costs here. We need to enable authorities to collect CIL to pay for the costs of infrastructure that has already been built, but always within the context of providing infrastructure to support the development of an area. They could not get way behind in the development plan. I hope that this reassures the Committee of the intentions and the benefits of this component of the Bill.
	The noble Earl proposes that we remove the power to enable authorities to spend CIL receipts on the administration system that directly supports the operation of CIL or the administrative expenses incurred in providing CIL-funded infrastructure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his input. I emphasise that our desire to resist this amendment is based purely on the flexibility brought by the retention of this power in the Bill. This approach provides options for the long term, should we ultimately decide that authorities can use CIL receipts to cover administration costs.
	The amendment seeks to protect CIL funds exclusively for direct infrastructure delivery and to prevent authorities diluting the benefit to infrastructure by spending CIL receipts on administration costs. I understand that concern, but the removal of the power in Clause 202(6)(c) may be counterproductive. Local authorities may well argue that if they are to introduce CIL, we must equip them to do so. Providing the power to finance the costs directly associated with operating CIL will therefore be an important facility.
	The clause has been constructed in such a way that regulations can control how money is spent here, and, crucially, in such a way that limits can be set on the amount of CIL contributing to administration costs. In this way, it allows revenues to be protected for their principal purpose while helping authorities to finance the cost of the system. This approach is entirely consistent with practice on existing charges. The revenue from the levy in business improvement districts, for example, may be spent on administration costs. I recognise that the amendment intends to maximise money for delivery. However, the most effective way of achieving this might be to maximise the number of authorities introducing CIL. Permitting them to finance the cost of the system from receipts could serve as a strong incentive, and greater take-up will benefit developers and communities alike. For all those reasons, I ask the noble Earl not to press his amendments.
	Amendment No. 442ZAA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, seeks assurances that authorities and their delivery partners do their best to ensure that CIL revenues result in infrastructure on the ground. I am sympathetic to that aspiration, but the amendment is unnecessary and may be unworkable. CIL will facilitate the delivery of the infrastructure needed to support growth because it will provide necessary funding. However, "best endeavours" creates a significant legal duty of the kind that is placed on managers of airports to assist constables or others in searching buildings, aircraft and people under the Aviation Security Act 1982, and on governing bodies for schools to provide for the special educational needs of children under the Education Act 1996. Why should an authority be required to implement new measures in the delivery of a project simply because CIL is applied to that project? What about other local authority services? Other initiatives ensure that LPAs put infrastructure planning at the heart of the development planning process—for example, the new PPS 12 on local development frameworks.
	Clause 202(1) contains a requirement to impose an obligation that CIL is applied, or caused to be applied, to funding infrastructure. Charging authorities would not be acting lawfully if they held CIL revenue indefinitely or spent CIL on things other than infrastructure. Another aspect of the amendment is that it calls for an assessment of what might be called a proof of effort, not only on the part of authorities, but also on the part of third party delivery agents. This requires proof of something that would be very difficult for authorities or third parties to demonstrate or for central government to assess.
	I do however appreciate that at its heart the amendment seeks to secure infrastructure delivery and hold authorities to account for their management and use of CIL revenues. The Government share this desire and for that reason the Bill already provides powers under Clause 202(7) to require authorities to monitor and report on their CIL activity. Local communities and developers will be able to spot any wrongful or inefficient use of CIL receipts and could exert pressure on a charging authority to make better use of moneys or to speed up delivery.
	Therefore, I believe that we already have sufficient and measurable safeguards within the Bill and through pre-existing practices to achieve the intentions of this amendment. While I have sympathy with its intention, I believe, for the reasons I have set out, that the amendment is unworkable. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, not to press her amendment.
	On Amendment No. 442A, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that one of the biggest issues was about stopping planning permission and then having no recourse or compensation, which the government amendment addresses particularly. But he raised a number of other issues on which I will write, if that is acceptable. I therefore would ask him not to press his amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may take the Minister back to a serious point concerning Clause 202(2) and (3). I am increasingly lacking in confidence that the Bill will work under the Government's terms. Accepting that the Government want to set out the scope—I think that that was the term used by the Minister—of the types of infrastructure that a developer might be expected to fund under Clause 202(2), in order to have that certainty why are regulations needed under Clause 202(3) to,
	"add, remove or vary an entry in the list of matters"?
	It does not refer to the scope, but, I repeat, to the matters. I simply cannot understand how those two statements can lie together. I am not asking for a reply now. I am asking for this to be considered as perhaps the one constructive thing that I might have said this afternoon.

The Earl of Caithness: In case the fifth cavalry can come to the aid of the Minister, perhaps I may intervene. I listened with care to what he said, but he did not comment on my Amendments Nos. 442ZF, 442ZG and 442ZH, or on Amendments Nos. 442ZE and 438S. He covered the other amendment to which I spoke, but in his hurry to get through, he missed out speaking on these.

Lord Patel of Bradford: To address the issue raised by the noble Baroness, we will consider it and will write in some detail. Amendments Nos. 442ZF and 442ZG seek to remove the ability of regulations to decide the level of interest that may or may not accompany repayments of overpaid CIL from a charging authority to a developer. Instead, these amendments specify that where such repayments are made, they should do so with added interest of 3 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate. Let me reassure the noble Earl that the Government are keen to ensure that regulations provide adequate safeguards to CIL-liable parties.
	On the matter of repayment, the Bill contains provision for regulations to be able to require repayment in cases of CIL overpayment, including where appropriate a suitable amount of interest. However, given the careful balance that needs to be struck by any such interest rate in incentivising the right amount of payment in the first place, this is an issue that the Government would prefer to set out in regulations rather than in the Bill. Overpayment by 3 per cent, as envisaged in the amendment, might actually encourage developers to overpay to secure a better rate of return from the charging authority than from a bank, and it would penalise a charging authority to pay out of public moneys interest, even if overpayment were made through no fault of its own.
	I ask the noble Earl not to move his amendment and allow the Government to set out further detail on how charging authorities may be required to repay CIL-liable parties in cases of overpayment in regulations.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 438S to 442ZD not moved.]
	Clause 202, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 442ZE not moved.]
	Clause 203 [Collection]:
	[Amendments Nos. 442ZF to 442ZH not moved.]
	Clause 203 agreed to.
	Clause 204 [Enforcement]:
	[Amendment No. 442A not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 442B:
	Clause 204, page 128, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations under this section may provide that any interest, penalty or surcharge payable by virtue of the regulations is to be treated for the purposes of sections 202 to 205 as if it were CIL.
	( ) The regulations providing for a surcharge or penalty must ensure that no surcharge or penalty in respect of an amount of CIL exceeds the higher of—
	(a) 30% of that amount, and(b) £20,000.
	( ) But the regulations may provide for more than one surcharge or penalty to be imposed in relation to a CIL charge.
	( ) The regulations may not authorise entry to a private dwelling without a warrant issued by a justice of the peace."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 204, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 442C:
	After Clause 204, insert the following new Clause—
	"Compensation
	(1) CIL regulations may require a charging authority to pay compensation in respect of loss or damage suffered as a result of enforcement action taken by the authority.
	(2) In this section, "enforcement action" means action taken by a charging authority under regulations under section 204, including—
	(a) the suspension or cancellation of a decision relating to planning permission, and(b) the prohibition of development pending assumption of liability for CIL or pending payment of CIL.
	(3) The regulations shall not require payment of compensation—
	(a) to a person who has failed to satisfy a liability to pay CIL, or(b) in other circumstances specified by the regulations.
	(4) Regulations under this section may make provision about—
	(a) the time and manner in which a claim for compensation is to be made, and(b) the sums, or the method of determining the sums, payable by way of compensation.
	(5) CIL regulations may permit a charging authority to apply CIL (either generally or subject to limits set by or determined in accordance with the regulations) for expenditure incurred under this section.
	(6) A dispute about compensation may be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
	(7) In relation to the determination of any such question, the provisions of sections 2 and 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (c. 33) apply subject to any necessary modifications and to the provisions of CIL regulations."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 205 [Community Infrastructure Levy: procedure]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 442D:
	Clause 205, page 128, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) procedures to be followed by a charging authority in relation to charging CIL;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay: moved Amendment No. 443:
	Clause 205, page 129, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) CIL regulations should make provision for it to be an offence for any applicant for development consent to seek to influence the decision by making improper donations."

Lord Reay: This amendment seeks to outlaw what I refer to as improper donations, but which in practice are known as good-will payments, and now I believe in some cases are called community funds, as one euphemism seeks to replace another in the age-old fashion. These are the payments which developers seeking planning permission for onshore wind farms are in the habit of distributing to entities in the locality where they are making the application. The developers have discretion as to what sum they offer, to whom they offer it and at what moment they offer it. The practice is now commonplace. The CPRE published a table only last week that detailed 35 such cases and says that such payments are now routinely offered by at least three of the principal wind power generating companies with each development they bring forward. The sums offered can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds over the life of the project.
	At one point, it looked as though the Government might be considering the regulation of these payments. They stated in the 2007 planning White Paper that:
	"Developers are not prevented from making goodwill payments to individuals; however, any such payments would be outside the planning system and cannot directly influence or be taken into account by a local planning authority in its determination of any planning application".
	No local authority in England has apparently got an official policy towards such payments, perhaps because the Government have said that they should be outside the planning system. But of course these payments are designed to influence the planning process and can, in fact, directly interfere with it.
	For example, near to where I live, developers are applying for permission to build a large wind power station at Armistead in Cumbria. They offered £19,000 to redo the tennis court belonging to the youth club in a local village. This offer was accepted by the trustees of the club, two of whom were parish councillors and one of whom was married to a parish councillor. These councillors then had to absent themselves from the discussion on the proposal at the parish council meeting. As a result, the meeting lacked a quorum and the parish council was unable to deliver an opinion on the proposal to the district council. That is an example of interference in the planning system.
	The time has come to regulate this area. The current situation provides too many opportunities for abuse. It also creates a highly divisive situation among local communities as developers, having already enriched selected farmers and landowners with the largesse supplied to them by the poor, unwitting electricity consumer, proceed after that to enrich selected elements among the local community.
	As the Government will no doubt have noticed, this issue is gaining traction. Last week there was a 20-minute discussion on the subject at midday on Radio 4 following the publication of the CPRE paper. So I hope the Government will do something. The Minister explained today that wind turbines would not be liable to CIL. My point is that the present substantial contributions to the local community made by the developers should be regulated and that the current lawless and disturbing situation should not be allowed to continue and develop unchecked. I challenge the Minister to justify the Government's present policy on this. To do so could be said to be the point of this probing amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: I shall speak, first, to the government amendments in this group. Amendment No. 443ZA has been brought forward in response to concerns about the reserve powers that the Secretary of State would have to intervene in the way charging authorities set, collect and apply CIL. Representations have been made about the wide nature of the Secretary of State's delegated powers and we have listened to those. The amendment therefore seeks to remove the regulation powers for the Secretary of State to provide herself with intervention powers over CIL-charging authorities.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has indicated that he intends to oppose the question that Clause 206 should stand part of the Bill. Following this amendment, Clause 206 would contain only a power for the Secretary of State to give guidance on any matter connected with CIL. I hope that that does not warrant a stand part debate and, on that basis, that the noble Earl will not oppose Clause 206 standing part of the Bill.
	Government Amendment No. 444C provides for amendments to be made to four Acts of Parliament so that CIL can function effectively and efficiently. Under proposed new subsection (1) in the amendment, Section 101(6) of the Local Government Act 1972 would be amended to provide that CIL is not a rate for the purposes of the subsection. Section 101 allows for, among other things, the delegation of functions within a local authority to its committees, sub-committees and officers. Section 101(6) disapplies Section 101 for the purposes of functions with respect to levying a rate. To avoid any question about whether CIL is a rate for the purposes of the Local Government Act, the amendment provides that CIL is not to be considered a rate for Section 101(6).
	Section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the Mayor of London to delegate functions. In particular, Section 38(2) allows the mayor to delegate his functions not only to the deputy mayor and any member of the staff of the Greater London Authority but also to the London Development Agency, the Common Council of the City of London and local authorities. The effect of proposed new subsection (2A) in the new clause is that the mayor may not delegate his CIL function to the latter three bodies.
	There is a restriction in Section 9(8) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1998 which means that the Broads Authority may delegate functions in relation to its navigation area only to its navigation committee. Proposed new subsection (3) would mean that the Broads Authority would be able to delegate CIL functions, within its powers to delegate, to someone else should it so wish to do.
	Finally, Section 71(1)(c) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 prevents a Minister making an order for the contracting out of,
	"a power or right of entry, search or seizure into or of any property".
	Exceptions are made to that in Section 71(3) relating to the enforcement of things such as non-domestic rates and water charges. The amendment provides a similar exception for CIL purposes.
	Government Amendment No. 460 is concerned with the commencement of two sets of provisions in Part 11. The effect of Amendment No. 460 would be that in Clause 199 and the consequential amendments provided for in a new clause by Amendment No. 444C are to come into force by a commencement order by the Secretary of State.
	Amendment No. 443, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, seeks to provide that the CIL regulations create a new offence when an applicant for development consent seeks to influence the decision by the consenting authority by offering what are called "improper donations". I reassure him that government policy is extremely clear on this issue; it is a fundamental principle of the planning system that planning permission cannot be bought or sold. I know there is some concern—he has quoted the CPRE evidence—about the influence of benefits offered by some wind farms.
	The question turns in part upon what is a material consideration relevant to a decision to grant planning permission for a particular development. That is a matter of both law and fact. It must be something that is about the development in question and the use of land, but in an individual case it will depend on the facts. The problem with the amendment is that it means that if a developer gets that difficult judgment wrong, they will have committed an offence, and that is obviously not right.
	A planning authority is already acting unlawfully if it gives an unreasonable amount of weight to something in reaching a decision, or gives weight to something that is not a material consideration. If it does so, its decisions are potentially subject to judicial review or to investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman. I strongly believe that that is right and we should not alter the situation. I know that is a disappointing reply for the noble Lord, but I hope he can remove his amendment on that basis.

The Earl of Caithness: I am disappointed by the Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Reay. I thought he had an extremely good point. I could regale the Committee with a number of examples where communities have been split by this developer behaviour. It is not just wind power; it is rich developers who are in a position to use money to try to secure local agreement by various means. In the case that has been mentioned, the parish council could not even take a vote on the issue. I hope she will look at this again. My noble friend has a good point and I felt she was a little dismissive of it, which is not her normal way.
	The question of whether the clause should stand part follows from my Amendment No. 435J. However, I am grateful to the Minister for her Amendment No. 443ZA because it gets the Secretary of State out of where the Secretary of State should not be. I claim that as a little victory. The Minister has given precious little away throughout the Bill. It has been a long hard slog, and if she were opening bat for England we would not lose a test match.

Baroness Hamwee: I shall just say a word about two of the government amendments. On Amendment No. 444C—I relate this back to the question that I asked on Amendment No. 438M, which is now subsection (6) of the new clause in the amendment—I assume that the personal approval of the declaration under that new clause is not a function exercisable under Part 11. I am still puzzled, but maybe when I read it all it will become clear.

Baroness Andrews: I am sure there is an answer, and I will write to the noble Baroness. We will untangle all these clauses and explain the relationships in a letter.

Baroness Hamwee: I have put it as an observation. On Amendment No. 460 to Clause 226, which is the commencement clause, can the Minister explain why only these two provisions are to be subject to the Secretary of State bringing the commencement by order? Is it to enable the development of regulations? Perhaps I could say a word about the timing; noble Lords have touched on this already. I understand that the Government had indicated that they expect commencement to be in the spring of next year. The noble Baroness is nodding. Given the need for consultation on the regulations and the economic climate, this is ambitious, but I suppose the regulations will come in after the Bill has been enacted and the Act has commenced.
	The noble Baroness has said that she will write to noble Lords with some idea of when the new regime can be in place. That would have to be after the development of a charging schedule and its examination.
	This has been a very difficult day. I take no pleasure in being as critical as I have been, but my noble friend and I feel extremely strongly that had the Government drafted regulations rather than focusing on how to get to the next stage of the Bill, then we would not have heard the difficulties, questions and criticism that have been voiced around the Committee today. The Government are often in this difficult situation of regulations following enactment. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this; I am being slightly self-indulgent in sounding off. But had regulations been thought through instead of an attitude of "How the hell can we get through this bloody Bill?"—unparliamentary language, maybe, but I think it expresses what quite a lot of people are feeling—we would have got to the end of this stage with much more consensus because our analysis of the problems might have come together rather more.

Baroness Andrews: I hear what the noble Baroness says. Having worked hard over the summer to put things on the face of the Bill, I think we have had a much better debate than we were able to have on Second Reading. I will write to her about the commencement orders and set out the schedules.

Lord Reay: I was disappointed with the noble Baroness's reply to my amendment, as she realised I would be. However, I will read carefully what she said. I do not think that this issue will go away. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 205, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 206 [Secretary of State]:
	moved Amendment No. 443ZA:
	Clause 206, page 129, line 10, leave out subsections (1) to (4)
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 206, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 443A not moved.]
	Clause 207 [CIL regulations: general]:

Lord Jenkin of Roding: moved Amendment No. 444:
	Clause 207, page 130, line 2, leave out "the House of Commons" and insert "both Houses of Parliament"

Lord Jenkin of Roding: The amendment's wording refers to the parliamentary approval of the regulations made under this part of the Bill. This was referred to very briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on Second Reading. I have been asked to say that he totally supports the amendment and offers his apologies to the Chamber for being unable to be here today. He chaired the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House and it is right that I draw attention to what it said on this issue.
	Paragraph 26 of the report says:
	"Regulations under clause 198 are subject to affirmative procedure in the House of Commons only. The memorandum"—
	that is, the government memorandum—
	"seeks to justify this on the basis that the regulations may result in the imposition of a charge, a matter for the financial privilege of the House of Commons".
	It is a matter for the other House to decide that; but one has to point out, as this report does, that,
	"receipts are not paid into the Consolidated Fund or any other particular fund but are to be spent by the receiving body (clause 202(1)); and that the regulations, so far as dealing with the matters referred to in clauses 202, 205 and 208, are not obviously financial".
	Perhaps most significant, as the committee pointed out, is the statement that,
	"the following charges are subject to a procedure in both Houses: national insurance, council tax, business rates, the Business Improvement Districts levy, the climate change levy and indeed the two charges",
	which were mentioned in the Government's memorandum. It goes on to recommend,
	"Except in so far as the House considers that provision in Part 11 ... is related to matters over which the Commons will claim financial privilege, we recommend that the power at clause 198 ... should be subject to control in both Houses".
	This is a matter of considerable constitutional significance. I have consulted the House authorities about the exact position. The first sentence in paragraph 7.173 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, which the authorities referred me to, says:
	"Each House of Parliament is guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke them. Until it does so, the other House is free to act as it thinks fit".
	So it is entirely appropriate for us to table the amendment that I have tabled. It will be open to another place to claim the financial privilege, but only after the Bill is returned with the Lords amendment.
	There is an exception to that rule—a category of matter which,
	"prima facie are material and intolerable infringements of privilege"—
	such as imposing a charge on public revenues, and so on. The Companion goes on to say:
	"With these exceptions, the Commons may either invoke their financial privileges in respect of Lords amendments or waive them; and the Commons regularly accept Lords amendments which have financial implications. The Speaker of the Commons directs that a 'special entry' be made in their Journals implicitly asserting their general rights but stating that the Commons accept the Lords amendment, 'the Commons being willing to waive their privileges'".
	Given the very clear and comprehensively argued case made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it is not only entirely proper for us to table the amendment that I have, but incumbent on us to do so as we think fit as an expression of our entitlement to do so.
	I add only one other point in favour of the amendment. When I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I had a very senior civil servant working for me with whom I kept closely in touch. He rose through the ranks and became a Permanent Secretary in another department. I speak of Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield, who has given me permission to use his name. At the end of a letter, in which he voiced a number of other criticisms, he said:
	"But what worries me most is that all the secondary legislation needed to implement all this will merely be subject to affirmative resolution in the Commons. We all know that it is virtually impossible to find the time or the will for MPs to debate affirmative resolutions thoroughly. It is a great pity if the CIL is regarded as a financial measure which the Lords can't look at, because it does seem to me that any regulations made to implement it need the sort of detailed scrutiny that only the Lords can give".
	That is a very powerful opinion from somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the system of parliamentary government in both Houses and we should treat it seriously. It is absurd that the Bill should allow the regulations to be debated only in the House of Commons, requiring only the approval of another place. It is not a tax—I criticised my noble friend earlier about that—but a charge. It is a charge which goes to local authorities; it does not go into the Consolidated Fund; and it is exactly like all the other charges that were listed in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I associate these Benches with the comments of the noble Lord; we entirely agree with him. Perhaps I may add one technical observation. What we have been discussing, even if it were a tax, is much broader than a financial provision. For that reason, I would support this House's role.

The Earl of Caithness: I have put my name to the amendment. I was critical of the Minister at Second Reading and suggested that she was quite wrong to allow to come to this House a Bill containing a clause concerning a levy for which only the House of Commons would be allowed to discuss the regulations. Having ploughed through today's proceedings, I am even more convinced that I was right in saying that the way in which this Bill has been presented is a disgrace. It quite contradicts Mr Healey, who said in the Commons that the Lords would be fully informed and,
	"have the maximum information possible".—[Official Report, Commons, Planning Bill Committee, 31/1/08; col. 632.]
	The Bill as it stands is a quite deliberate attempt to stop this House debating the regulations and prevent us having the maximum information available. If that is how the Government wish to treat this House, let them firmly state that on the record.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Lest it be thought that no one on this side shares the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I associate myself with them. I said at Second Reading that I thought that the levy was a tax. It was made clear by the Minister that it was not. When the question of Treasury involvement was raised today, it was made clear that that was not because it was a tax. The heart and guts of this are precisely in the regulations. It is deeply offensive for a framework Bill depending on regulations to be put before us when those regulations need a lot more work before they are brought forward. I say in a non-partisan way—I do not associate myself with some of the more emotive remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—that my noble friend the Minister would do a service to the Chamber to accept that a substantial case is being made. It is not the way for the Government to proceed and I hope that they will think again.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Those who have expressed views on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin are in complete agreement that it would be improper if the regulations could be approved only by the other place. I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out in detail the background and going through all the official guides to parliamentary procedure. If the Government's aspiration for the levy to be seen as a charge is to have any credibility, they must accept that this House has every right to play a full part in consideration of the regulations. I hope that the Minister will save us all the trouble of coming back to the amendment again and accept it.

Baroness Andrews: The amendment was moved in great seriousness and has found support all around the Committee. I will not reiterate the quotations of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, from the DPRRC. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with his judgment about how this is best done.
	The amendment goes further than the DPRRC's report, which recognises that the Commons may claim privilege over some parts of the CIL clauses. This very important issue goes to the heart of the relationship between our House and the other place. I have considered this sensitive issue carefully, but we must also be mindful of the views of the other place, as indeed the DPRRC's report indicates. I believe that the Speaker of the House of Commons will reach a view on whether financial privilege extends to amendments made by this House when the Bill is returned to the other place. The decision is for the Commons authorities. I cannot advise on what that decision will be. Our considered view is that this matter is covered by privilege.
	I do not think that I can add anything else to the matter at the moment. The DPRRC report notes that the matter would be better left for the other place to resolve. The views of noble Lords are certainly on the record.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am deeply disappointed at the noble Baroness's view. I had hoped that she might at least take the matter back and discuss it with her colleagues. She has missed the point. It is for the other House to claim privilege; it is not for this House to take a view on what that privilege is.
	We have had a very long day. I have been on the Energy Bill too so we are quits on that. I am not sure that the Minister took the matter on board, so I will quote again from the Companion. It states:
	"Each House of Parliament is guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke them. Until it does so the other House is free to act as it thinks fit".
	The Chamber is not full, but given that there is support on every side of it for this amendment, and that it was strongly spoken to at Second Reading, I hope that the noble Baroness would say that there were strong feelings in this House. I did not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, did when he said that the provision was offensive, but I have to say that I actually feel that myself.
	When you think, as the Delegated Powers Committee said, that national insurance, council tax, business rates, business improvements and the climate change levy regulations are all approved by both Houses, it is, if I may say so, offensive that the Government have decided that the community infrastructure levy is to be the privilege of the House of Commons on its own. If another place chooses to do that, of course that is its right, but I hope that the noble Baroness, perhaps in conjunction with the Leader of the House, will take back to her colleagues the strong feelings that have been expressed on the matter so that we may return to it and perhaps get a better answer. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 207 agreed to.
	Clause 208 [Relationship with other powers]:
	[Amendments Nos. 444A and 444B not moved.]
	Clause 208 agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 444C:
	After Clause 208, insert the following new Clause—
	"Community Infrastructure Levy: amendments
	(1) In section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities) after subsection (6) insert—
	"(6A) Community Infrastructure Levy under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 is not a rate for the purposes of subsection (6)."
	(2) In section 9 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 (c. 4) (the Navigation Committee)—
	(a) in subsection (8), after "Subject" insert "to subsection (8A) and";(b) after subsection (8) insert—"(8A) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to functions under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy)."
	(3) In section 71(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40) (contracting out: functions of local authorities) omit the word "and" at the end of paragraph (g) and after paragraph (h) insert "; and
	(i) sections 203 and 204 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy: collection and enforcement)."
	(4) In section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (delegation), after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) In relation to functions exercisable by the Mayor under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy) subsection (2) has effect with the omission of paragraphs (c) to (f).""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 209 agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 444D:
	After Clause 209, insert the following new Clause—
	"Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 (c. 2)
	The Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 (c. 2) is repealed."

The Earl of Caithness: I can move the amendment briefly because the noble Baroness wrote my speech for me in speaking to Amendment No. 435A. She said that the Government were not going to reintroduce PGS, so why do we need the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 on the statute book any more? I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: That is one of the better speeches I have heard.
	The amendment would provide for the repeal of PGS. The Prime Minister stated in July 2007 that the main planning-gain supplement Bill was provisional. If a better alternative were found, the Government would be willing to defer its introduction in the current legislative Session. Following discussions with the development industry, the Government deferred the introduction of a planning-gain supplement Bill in this parliamentary Session to take forward CIL in preference. The Government are clear that more revenues are needed to help fund the infrastructure necessary to support growth, and the development industry is willing and has backed CIL. We are legislating for CIL, not PGS.
	The PGS preparations Act 2007 is three sections long and cannot be used to introduce PGS. It does not set out the detailed policy, nature or operation of PGS. Its sole purpose is to allow certain authorities to spend money in order to prepare for the introduction of PGS—for example, to develop IT systems. In the event, no expenditure has been incurred in relation to PGS which would not have been permitted in the absence of the preparations Act. There is therefore no need to repeal the preparations Act, as it was a narrow preparations measure designed to ensure the regularity and probity of government expenditure in accordance with the usual government accounting rules. I hope that the noble Earl can withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: That is a dreadful response, with due respect to the Minister. Can she tell me how much money has been spent under the preparations Act? Why, if the Government are not going to proceed with it, do they need it on the statute book?
	This is the Government at their most duplicitous. They would prefer a planning-gain supplement. I can see that in a few years' time they will turn around and say that CIL is not working, so we need a planning-gain supplement. As we would still have the preparations Act on the statute book, they could use that to get on and start planning, introducing another bit of legislation. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister has a better answer for me now. Given her assurance that they are not going to introduce PGS, why does one still need the preparations Act on the statute book?

Baroness Andrews: As I explained—and I cannot explain it much more clearly—it is a small and technical piece of legislation, and there is no need to repeal it.

The Earl of Caithness: I am so tempted to call a Division now. I am very frustrated at the close of today's business. Clearly, however, a Division would count the House out. That would not be conducive to the rest of business. For the time being, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would hope that the noble Baroness could, first, answer my question on how much has been spent and, secondly, write to me in slightly fuller detail about this. Otherwise we might have to come back to it.

Baroness Andrews: I am happy to write to the noble Earl and answer the question about costs. I would not be discourteous to him by any means.

The Earl of Caithness: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 210 agreed to.
	Clause 211 negatived.
	Clause 212 [Pre-commencement statements of policy, consultation etc.]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 445 to 447:
	Clause 212, page 131, line 14, leave out "expressions relating to the Crown" and insert ""Crown land" and "the appropriate Crown authority""
	Clause 212, page 131, line 17, at beginning insert "For the purposes of this section,"
	Clause 212, page 131, line 36, at beginning insert "For the purposes of this section,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 212, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 213 agreed to.
	Clause 214 [Service of notices: general]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 448:
	Clause 214, page 133, line 23, leave out "(subject to subsection (4))"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 215 and 216 agreed to.
	Clause 217 [Orders and regulations]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 449 to 453:
	Clause 217, page 135, line 16, leave out "This section applies" and insert "Subsections (2) and (3) apply"
	Clause 217, page 135, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) a power conferred by paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 4;"
	Clause 217, page 135, line 31, leave out from "containing" to end of line 32 and insert "—
	(a) an order granting development consent;(b) an order made by virtue of paragraph 1(7A) of Schedule 4;(c) an order changing or revoking an order granting development consent;(d) an order under section 14(3), (Intervention: other circumstances), 153(3), 154(5), 165(1), 196(5) or 212(3)(g);(e) regulations under section 101(2)(c) or 102(2)(b)."
	Clause 217, page 135, line 33, after "14(3)," insert "(Intervention: other circumstances),"
	Clause 217, page 135, line 35, at end insert—
	"(7) No regulations may be made under section 101(2)(c) or 102(2)(b) unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 217, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 218 and 219 agreed to.
	Clause 220 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 454 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 455:
	Clause 220, page 136, line 41, at end insert—
	""gas transporter" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 7(1) of that Act);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 220, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 221 agreed to.
	Schedule 12 [Application of Act to Scotland: modifications]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 455A and 456:
	Schedule 12, page 188, line 9, at end insert—
	" Section (Liability under existing regimes) applies as if—
	(a) for paragraph (c), there were substituted—"(c) section 10 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (compensation for damage resulting from exercise of statutory powers)", and(b) paragraph (d) were omitted.
	Section (Compensation in case where no right to claim in nuisance) applies as if—
	(a) in subsection (4), the reference to the Lands Tribunal were a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland,(b) for subsections (5) and (6) there were substituted—"(5) Section 6 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (which makes the construction of the railway subject to that Act and the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845) applies in relation to authorised works as it applies in relation to the construction of a railway.(6) Any rule or principle applied to the construction of section 6 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 must be applied to the construction of subsection (3) of this section (with any necessary modifications).", and(c) in subsection (7)—(i) the reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 were a reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, and(ii) in paragraph (c), for "17" there were substituted "15"."
	Schedule 12, page 188, line 19, at end insert—
	" Section 163 applies as if—
	(a) in subsection (3)—(i) for the words from "the", where it first occurs, to "(c. 49)" there were substituted "subsections (5) to (9) of section 135 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) (which relate to the execution and cost of certain works)", and(ii) the words from "section 276" to the end were omitted,(b) in subsection (4), for "section 289" there were substituted "subsection (5) of section 135", and(c) subsection (5) were omitted."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 222 and 223 agreed to.
	Schedule 13 [Repeals]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 457:
	Schedule 13, page 189, leave out line 36
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 224 agreed to.
	Clause 225 [Extent]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendments Nos. 458 and 459:
	Clause 225, page 139, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) Section (Grants for advice and assistance: Scotland) extends to Scotland only."
	Clause 225, page 139, line 36, after "construction" insert "(other than by a gas transporter)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 225, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 226 [Commencement]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 460:
	Clause 226, page 140, line 10, leave out "(subject to subsection (7) below);" and insert ", except sections 199, (Community Infrastructure Levy: amendments) and 209;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 226, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 227 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

The Bill was returned from the Commons with amendments and with a privilege amendment. It was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
	House adjourned at 6.54 pm.